The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by
Ramanuja, by Trans. George Thibaut

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.

This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file.  Please do not remove it.  Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.

Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file.  Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
how the file may be used.  You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.


**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****


Title: The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja
       Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48

Author: Trans. George Thibaut

Release Date: January, 2005 [EBook #7297]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on April 9, 2003]

Edition: 10

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-Latin-1

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE VEDANTA-SUTRAS ***





THE

VEDĀNTĀ-SŪTRAS

WITH THE COMMENTARY BY

RĀMĀNUJA

TRANSLATED BY

GEORGE THIBAUT

PART III

Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48

[1904]



[Scanned in by Srinivasan Sriram (as part of the sripedia.org initiative).
OCRed and proofed at Distributed Proofing by other volunteers; Juliet
Sutherland, project manager. Formatting and additional proofreading at
Sacred-texts.com by J.B. Hare. This text is in the public domain worldwide.
This file may be used for any non-commercial purpose provided this notice
is left intact.]




CONTENTS.

VEDĀNTA-SŪTRAS WITH THE COMMENTARY OF RĀMĀNUJA.


INTRODUCTION


ADHYĀYA I

Pāda I

Pāda II

Pāda III

Pāda IV


ADHYĀYA II

Pāda I

Pāda II

Pāda III

Pāda IV


ADHYĀYA III

Pāda I

Pāda II

Pāda III

Pāda IV


ADHYĀYA IV

Pāda I

Pāda II

Pāda III

Pāda IV


INDEXES BY DR. M. WINTERNITZ:--

Index of Quotations

Index of Sanskrit Words

Index of Names and Subjects

Corrigenda

Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the
Sacred Books of the East




INTRODUCTION.

In the Introduction to the first volume of the translation of the
'Vedānta-Sūtras with Sankara's Commentary' (vol. xxxiv of this Series) I
have dwelt at some length on the interest which Rāmānuja's Commentary
may claim--as being, on the one hand, the fullest exposition of what may
be called the Theistic Vedānta, and as supplying us, on the other, with
means of penetrating to the true meaning of Bādarāyana's Aphorisms. I do
not wish to enter here into a fuller discussion of Rāmānuja's work in
either of these aspects; an adequate treatment of them would, moreover,
require considerably more space than is at my disposal. Some very useful
material for the right understanding of Rāmānuju's work is to be found
in the 'Analytical Outline of Contents' which Messrs. M. Rangākārya and
M. B. Varadarāja Aiyangār have prefixed to the first volume of their
scholarly translation of the Srībhāshya (Madras, 1899).

The question as to what the Stūras really teach is a critical, not a
philosophical one. This distinction seems to have been imperfectly
realised by several of those critics, writing in India, who have
examined the views expressed in my Introduction to the translation of
Sankara's Commentary. A writer should not be taxed with 'philosophic
incompetency,' 'hopeless theistic bias due to early training,' and the
like, simply because he, on the basis of a purely critical investigation,
considers himself entitled to maintain that a certain ancient document
sets forth one philosophical view rather than another. I have nowhere
expressed an opinion as to the comparative philosophical value of the
systems of Sankara and Rāmānuja; not because I have no definite opinions
on this point, but because to introduce them into a critical enquiry
would be purposeless if not objectionable.

The question as to the true meaning of the Sūtras is no doubt of some
interest; although the interest of problems of this kind may easily be
over-estimated. Among the remarks of critics on my treatment of this
problem I have found little of solid value. The main arguments which I
have set forth, not so much in favour of the adequacy of Rāmānuja's
interpretation, as against the validity of Sankarākārya's understanding
of the Sūtras, appear to me not to have been touched. I do not by any
means consider the problem a hopeless one; but its solution will not be
advanced, in any direction, but by those who will be at the trouble of
submitting the entire body of the Sūtras to a new and detailed
investigation, availing themselves to the full of the help that is to be
derived from the study of all the existing Commentaries.

The present translation of the Srībhāshya claims to be faithful on the
whole, although I must acknowledge that I have aimed rather at making it
intelligible and, in a certain sense, readable than scrupulously
accurate. If I had to rewrite it, I should feel inclined to go even
further in the same direction. Indian Philosophy would, in my opinion,
be more readily and widely appreciated than it is at present, if the
translators of philosophical works had been somewhat more concerned to
throw their versions into a form less strange and repellent to the
western reader than literal renderings from technical Sanskrit must
needs be in many passages. I am not unaware of the peculiar dangers of
the plan now advocated--among which the most obvious is the temptation
it offers to the translator of deviating from the text more widely than
regard for clearness would absolutely require. And I am conscious of
having failed in this respect in more than one instance. In other cases
I have no doubt gone astray through an imperfect understanding of the
author's meaning. The fact is, that as yet the time has hardly come for
fully adequate translations of comprehensive works of the type of the
Srībhāshya, the authors of which wrote with reference--in many cases
tacit--to an immense and highly technical philosophical literature which
is only just beginning to be studied, and comprehended in part, by
European scholars.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the help which I have received
from various quarters in preparing this translation. Pandit Gangādhara
Sāstrin, C. I. E., of the Benares Sanskrit College, has, with unwearying
kindness and patience, supplied me throughout with comments of his own
on difficult sections of the text. Pandit Svāmin Rāma Misra Sāstrin has
rendered me frequent assistance in the earlier portion of my task. And
to Mr. A. Venis, the learned Principal of the Benares Sanskrit College,
I am indebted for most instructive notes on some passages of a
peculiarly technical and abstruse character. Nor can I conclude without
expressing my sense of obligation to Colonel G. A. Jacob, whose
invaluable 'Concordance to the Principal Upanishads' lightens to an
incalculable degree the task of any scholar who is engaged in work
bearing on the Vedānta.




VEDĀNTA-SŪTRAS

WITH

RĀMĀNUJA'S SRĪBHĀSHYA

FIRST ADHYĀYA.

FIRST PĀDA.

MAY my mind be filled with devotion towards the highest Brahman, the
abode of Lakshmi who is luminously revealed in the Upanishads; who in
sport produces, sustains, and reabsorbs the entire Universe; whose only
aim is to foster the manifold classes of beings that humbly worship him.

The nectar of the teaching of Parāsara's son (Vyāsa),--which was brought
up from the middle of the milk-ocean of the Upanishads--which restores
to life the souls whose vital strength had departed owing to the heat of
the fire of transmigratory existence--which was well guarded by the
teachers of old--which was obscured by the mutual conflict of manifold
opinions,--may intelligent men daily enjoy that as it is now presented
to them in my words.

The lengthy explanation (vritti) of the Brahma-sūtras which was composed
by the Reverend Bodhāyana has been abridged by former teachers;
according to their views the words of the Sūtras will be explained in
this present work.




1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.

In this Sūtra the word 'then' expresses immediate sequence; the word
'therefore' intimates that what has taken place (viz. the study of the
karmakānda of the Veda) constitutes the reason (of the enquiry into
Brahman). For the fact is that the enquiry into (lit.'the desire to
know') Brahman--the fruit of which enquiry is infinite in nature and
permanent--follows immediately in the case of him who, having read the
Veda together with its auxiliary disciplines, has reached the knowledge
that the fruit of mere works is limited and non-permanent, and hence has
conceived the desire of final release.

The compound 'brahmajijńāsā' is to be explained as 'the enquiry of
Brahman,' the genitive case 'of Brahman' being understood to denote the
object; in agreement with the special rule as to the meaning of the
genitive case, Pānini II, 3, 65. It might be said that even if we
accepted the general meaning of the genitive case--which is that of
connexion in general--Brahman's position (in the above compound) as an
object would be established by the circumstance that the 'enquiry'
demands an object; but in agreement with the principle that the direct
denotation of a word is to be preferred to a meaning inferred we take
the genitive case 'of Brahman' as denoting the object.

The word 'Brahman' denotes the hightest Person (purushottama), who is
essentially free from all imperfections and possesses numberless classes
of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. The term 'Brahman'
is applied to any things which possess the quality of greatness
(brihattva, from the root 'brih'); but primarily denotes that which
possesses greatness, of essential nature as well as of qualities, in
unlimited fulness; and such is only the Lord of all. Hence the word
'Brahman' primarily denotes him alone, and in a secondary derivative
sense only those things which possess some small part of the Lord's
qualities; for it would be improper to assume several meanings for the
word (so that it would denote primarily or directly more than one thing).
The case is analogous to that of the term 'bhagavat [FOOTNOTE 4:1].' The
Lord only is enquired into, for the sake of immortality, by all those
who are afflicted with the triad of pain. Hence the Lord of all is that
Brahman which, according to the Sūtra, constitutes the object of enquiry.
The word 'jijńāsā' is a desiderative formation meaning 'desire to know.'
And as in the case of any desire the desired object is the chief thing,
the Sūtra means to enjoin knowledge--which is the object of the desire
of knowledge. The purport of the entire Sūtra then is as follows: 'Since
the fruit of works known through the earlier part of the Mīmāmsā is
limited and non-permanent, and since the fruit of the knowledge of
Brahman--which knowledge is to be reached through the latter part of the
Mīmāmsā--is unlimited and permanent; for this reason Brahman is to be
known, after the knowledge of works has previously taken place.'--The
same meaning is expressed by the Vrittikāra when saying 'after the
comprehension of works has taken place there follows the enquiry into
Brahman.' And that the enquiry into works and that into Brahman
constitute one body of doctrine, he (the Vrittikāra) will declare later
on 'this Sārīraka-doctrine is connected with Jaimini's doctrine as
contained in sixteen adhyāyas; this proves the two to constitute one
body of doctrine.' Hence the earlier and the later Mīmāmsā are separate
only in so far as there is a difference of matter to be taught by each;
in the same way as the two halves of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā-sūtras,
consisting of six adhyāyas each, are separate [FOOTNOTE 5:1]; and as each
adhyāya is separate. The entire Mīmāmsā-sātra--which begins with the
Sūtra 'Now therefore the enquiry into religious duty' and concludes with
the Sūtra '(From there is) no return on account of scriptural statement'--
has, owing to the special character of the contents, a definite order of
internal succession. This is as follows. At first the precept 'one is to
learn one's own text (svādhyāya)' enjoins the apprehension of that
aggregate of syllables which is called 'Veda,' and is here referred to
as 'svādhyāya.' Next there arises the desire to know of what nature the
'Learning' enjoined is to be, and how it is to be done. Here there come
in certain injunctions such as 'Let a Brahnmana be initiated in his
eighth year' and 'The teacher is to make him recite the Veda'; and
certain rules about special observances and restrictions--such as
'having performed the upākarman on the full moon of Sravana or
Praushthapada according to prescription, he is to study the sacred
verses for four months and a half--which enjoin all the required details.

From all these it is understood that the study enjoined has for its
result the apprehension of the aggregate of syllables called Veda, on
the part of a pupil who has been initiated by a teacher sprung from a
good family, leading a virtuous life, and possessing purity of soul; who
practises certain special observances and restrictions; and who learns
by repeating what is recited by the teacher.

And this study of the Veda is of the nature of a samskāra of the text,
since the form of the injunction 'the Veda is to be studied' shows that
the Veda is the object (of the action of studying). By a samskāra is
understood an action whereby something is fitted to produce some other
effect; and that the Veda should be the object of such a samskaāra is
quite appropriate, since it gives rise to the knowledge of the four
chief ends of human action--viz. religious duty, wealth, pleasure, and
final release--and of the means to effect them; and since it helps to
effect those ends by itself also, viz. by mere mechanical repetition
(apart from any knowledge to which it may give rise).

The injunction as to the study of the Veda thus aims only at the
apprehension of the aggregate of syllables (constituting the Veda)
according to certain rules; it is in this way analogous to the recital
of mantras.

It is further observed that the Veda thus apprehended through reading
spontaneously gives rise to the ideas of certain things subserving
certain purposes. A person, therefore, who has formed notions of those
things immediately, i.e. on the mere apprehension of the text of the
Veda through reading, thereupon naturally applies himself to the study
of the Mimāmsa, which consists in a methodical discussion of the
sentences constituting the text of the Veda, and has for its result the
accurate determination of the nature of those things and their different
modes. Through this study the student ascertains the character of the
injunctions of work which form part of the Veda, and observes that all
work leads only to non-permanent results; and as, on the other hand, he
immediately becomes aware that the Upanishad sections--which form part
of the Veda which he has apprehended through reading--refer to an
infinite and permanent result, viz. immortality, he applies himself to
the study of the Sārīraka-Mīmāmsā, which consists in a systematic
discussion of the Vedānta-texts, and has for its result the accurate
determination of their sense. That the fruit of mere works is transitory,
while the result of the knowledge of Brahman is something permanent, the
Vedanta-texts declare in many places--'And as here the world acquired by
work perishes, so there the world acquired by merit perishes' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1,6); 'That work of his has an end' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 10); 'By
non-permanent works the Permanent is not obtained' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 10);
'Frail indeed are those boats, the sacrifices' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 7); 'Let a
Brāhmana, after he has examined all these worlds that are gained by
works, acquire freedom from all desires. What is not made cannot be
gained by what is made. To understand this, let the pupil, with fuel in
his hand, go to a teacher who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman.
To that pupil who has approached him respectfully, whose mind is
altogether calm, the wise teacher truly told that knowledge of Brahman
through which he knows the imperishable true Person' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 12,
13). 'Told' here means 'he is to tell.'--On the other hand, 'He who
knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He who sees
this does not see death' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2); 'He becomes a self-ruler'
(Ch. Up. VII, 25, 2); 'Knowing him he becomes immortal here' (Taitt. Ār.
III, 12, 7); 'Having known him he passes over death; there is no other
path to go' (Svet. Up. VI, 15); 'Having known as separate his Self and
the Mover, pleased thereby he goes to immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6).

But--an objection here is raised--the mere learning of the Veda with its
auxiliary disciplines gives rise to the knowledge that the heavenly
world and the like are the results of works, and that all such results
are transitory, while immortality is the fruit of meditation on Brahman.
Possessing such knowledge, a person desirous of final release may at
once proceed to the enquiry into Brahman; and what need is there of a
systematic consideration of religious duty (i.e. of the study of the
Purva Mimāmsā)?--If this reasoning were valid, we reply, the person
desirous of release need not even apply himself to the study of the
Sārīraka Mīmāmsā, since Brahman is known from the mere reading of the
Veda with its auxiliary disciplines.--True. Such knowledge arises indeed
immediately (without deeper enquiry). But a matter apprehended in this
immediate way is not raised above doubt and mistake. Hence a systematic
discussion of the Vedānta-texts must he undertaken in order that their
sense may be fully ascertained--We agree. But you will have to admit
that for the very same reason we must undertake a systematic enquiry
into religious duty!

[FOOTNOTE 4:1. 'Bhagavat' denotes primarily the Lord, the divinity;
secondarily any holy person.]

[FOOTNOTE 5:1. The first six books of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā-sūtras give
rules for the fundamental forms of the sacrifice; while the last six
books teach how these rules are to be applied to the so-called modified
forms.]




THE SMALL PŪRVAPAKSHA.

But--a further objection is urged--as that which has to precede the
systematic enquiry into Brahman we should assign something which that
enquiry necessarily presupposes. The enquiry into the nature of duty,
however, does not form such a prerequisite, since a consideration of the
Vedanta-texts may be undertaken by any one who has read those texts,
even if he is not acquainted with works.--But in the Vedanta-texts there
are enjoined meditations on the Udgītha and the like which are matters
auxiliary to works; and such meditations are not possible for him who is
not acquainted with those works!--You who raise this objection clearly
are ignorant of what kind of knowledge the Sārīraka Mīmāmsā is concerned
with! What that sāstra aims at is to destroy completely that wrong
knowledge which is the root of all pain, for man, liable to birth, old
age, and death, and all the numberless other evils connected with
transmigratory existence--evils that spring from the view, due to
beginningless Nescience, that there is plurality of existence; and to
that end the sāstra endeavours to establish the knowledge of the unity
of the Self. Now to this knowledge, the knowledge of works--which is
based on the assumption of plurality of existence--is not only useless
but even opposed. The consideration of the Udgītha and the like, which
is supplementary to works only, finds a place in the Vedānta-texts, only
because like them it is of the nature of knowledge; but it has no direct
connexion with the true topic of those texts. Hence some prerequisite
must be indicated which has reference to the principal topic of the
sāstra.--Quite so; and this prerequisite is just the knowledge of works;
for scripture declares that final release results from knowledge with
works added. The Sūtra-writer himself says further on 'And there is need
of all works, on account of the scriptural statement of sacrifices and
the like' (Ve. Sū. III, 4, 26). And if the required works were not known,
one could not determine which works have to be combined with knowledge
and which not. Hence the knowledge of works is just the necessary
prerequisite.--Not so, we reply. That which puts an end to Nescience is
exclusively the knowledge of Brahman, which is pure intelligence and
antagonistic to all plurality. For final release consists just in the
cessation of Nescience; how then can works--to which there attach
endless differences connected with caste, āsrama, object to be
accomplished, means and mode of accomplishment, &c.--ever supply a means
for the cessation of ignorance, which is essentially the cessation of
the view that difference exists? That works, the results of which are
transitory, are contrary to final release, and that such release can be
effected through knowledge only, scripture declares in many places;
compare all the passages quoted above (p. 7).

As to the assertion that knowledge requires sacrifices and other works,
we remark that--as follows from the essential contrariety of knowledge
and works, and as further appears from an accurate consideration of the
words of scripture--pious works can contribute only towards the rise of
the desire of knowledge, in so far namely as they clear the internal
organ (of knowledge), but can have no influence on the production of the
fruit, i.e. knowledge itself. For the scriptural passage concerned runs
as follows Brāhmanas desire to know him by the study of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts,' &c. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22).

According to this passage, the desire only of knowledge springs up
through works; while another text teaches that calmness, self-restraint,
and so on, are the direct means for the origination of knowledge itself.
(Having become tranquil, calm, subdued, satisfied, patient, and
collected, he is to see the Self within the Self (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).)

The process thus is as follows. After the mind of a man has been cleaned
of all impurities through works performed in many preceding states of
existence, without a view to special forms of reward, there arises in
him the desire of knowledge, and thereupon--through knowledge itself
originated by certain scriptural texts--'Being only, this was in the
beginning, one only without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, I, 2); 'Truth,
Knowledge, the Infinite, is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Without parts,
without actions, calm, without fault, without taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19);
'This Self is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'Thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI,
9, 7), Nescience comes to an end. Now, 'Hearing,' 'reflection,' and
'meditation,' are helpful towards cognising the sense of these Vedic
texts. 'Hearing' (sravana) means the apprehension of the sense of
scripture, together with collateral arguments, from a teacher who
possesses the true insight, viz. that the Vedānta-texts establish the
doctrine of the unity of the Self. 'Reflection' (mananam) means the
confirmation within oneself of the sense taught by the teacher, by means
of arguments showing it alone to be suitable. 'Meditation'
(nididhyāsanam) finally means the constant holding of thai sense before
one's mind, so as to dispel thereby the antagonistic beginningless
imagination of plurality. In the case of him who through 'hearing,'
'reflection,' and meditation,' has dis-dispelled the entire imagination
of plurality, the knowledge of the sense of Vedānta-texts puts an end to
Nescience; and what we therefore require is a statement of the
indispensable prerequisites of such 'hearing,' 'reflection,' and so on.
Now of such prerequisites there are four, viz. discrimination of what is
permanent and what is non-permanent; the full possession of calmness of
mind, self-restraint and similar means; the renunciation of all
enjoyment of fruits here below as well as in the next world; and the
desire of final release.

Without these the desire of knowledge cannot arise; and they are
therefore known, from the very nature of the matter, to be necessary
prerequisites. To sum up: The root of bondage is the unreal view of
plurality which itself has its root in Nescience that conceals the true
being of Brahman. Bondage itself thus is unreal, and is on that account
cut short, together with its root, by mere knowledge. Such knowledge is
originated by texts such as 'That art thou'; and work is of no help
either towards its nature, or its origination, or its fruit (i.e.
release). It is on the other hand helpful towards the desire of
knowledge, which arises owing to an increase of the element of goodness
(sattva) in the soul, due to the destruction of the elements of passion
(rajas) and darkness (tamas) which are the root of all moral evil. This
use is referred to in the text quoted above, 'Brāhmanas wish to know him,'
&c. As, therefore, the knowledge of works is of no use towards the
knowledge of Brahman, we must acknowledge as the prerequisite of the
latter knowledge the four means mentioned above.




THE SMALL SIDDHĀNTA.

To this argumentation we make the following reply. We admit that release
consists only in the cessation of Nescience, and that this cessation
results entirely from the knowledge of Brahman. But a distinction has
here to be made regarding the nature of this knowledge which the
Vedānta-texts aim at enjoining for the purpose of putting an end to
Nescience. Is it merely the knowledge of the sense of sentences which
originates from the sentences? or is it knowledge in the form of
meditation (upāsana) which has the knowledge just referred to as its
antecedent? It cannot be knowledge of the former kind: for such
knowledge springs from the mere apprehension of the sentence, apart from
any special injunction, and moreover we do not observe that the
cessation of Nescience is effected by such knowledge merely. Our
adversary will perhaps attempt to explain things in the following way.
The Vedānta-texts do not, he will say, produce that knowledge which
makes an end of Nescience, so long as the imagination of plurality is
not dispelled. And the fact that such knowledge, even when produced,
does not at once and for every one put a stop to the view of plurality
by no means subverts my opinion; for, to mention an analogous instance,
the double appearance of the moon--presenting itself to a person
affected with a certain weakness of vision--does not come to an end as
soon as the oneness of the moon has been apprehended by reason.
Moreover, even without having come to an end, the view of plurality is
powerless to effect further bondage, as soon as the root, i.e.
Nescience, has once been cut But this defence we are unable to admit. It
is impossible that knowledge should not arise when its means, i.e. the
texts conveying knowledge, are once present. And we observe that even
when there exists an antagonistic imagination (interfering with the rise
of knowledge), information given by competent persons, the presence of
characteristic marks (on which a correct inference may be based), and
the like give rise to knowledge which sublates the erroneous
imagination. Nor can we admit that even after the sense of texts has
been apprehended, the view of plurality may continue owing to some small
remainder of beginningless imagination. For as this imagination which
constitutes the means for the view of plurality is itself false, it is
necessarily put an end to by the rise of true knowledge. If this did not
take place, that imagination would never come to an end, since there is
no other means but knowledge to effect its cessation. To say that the
view of plurality, which is the effect of that imagination, continues
even after its root has been cut, is mere nonsense. The instance of some
one seeing the moon double is not analogous. For in his case the
non-cessation of wrong knowledge explains itself from the circumstance
that the cause of wrong knowledge, viz. the real defect of the eye which
does not admit of being sublated by knowledge, is not removed, although
that which would sublate wrong knowledge is near. On the other hand,
effects, such as fear and the like, may come to an end because they can
be sublated by means of knowledge of superior force. Moreover, if it
were true that knowledge arises through the dispelling of the
imagination of plurality, the rise of knowledge would really never be
brought about. For the imagination of plurality has through gradual
growth in the course of beginningless time acquired an infinite
strength, and does not therefore admit of being dispelled by the
comparatively weak conception of non-duality. Hence we conclude that the
knowledge which the Vedānta-texts aim at inculcating is a knowledge
other than the mere knowledge of the sense of sentences, and denoted by
'dhyāna,' 'upāsanā' (i. e. meditation), and similar terms.

With this agree scriptural texts such as 'Having known it, let him
practise meditation' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21); 'He who, having searched out
the Self, knows it' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Meditate on the Self as Om'
(Mu. Up. II, 2, 6); 'Having known that, he is freed from the jaws of
death' (Ka. Up. I, 3, 15); 'Let a man meditate on the Self only as his
world' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 15); 'The Self is to be seen, to be heard, to her
reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 6); 'That we must
search out, that we must try to understand' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1).

(According to the principle of the oneness of purport of the different
sākhās) all these texts must be viewed as agreeing in meaning with the
injunction of meditation contained in the passage quoted from the Bri.
Up.; and what they enjoin is therefore meditation. In the first and
second passages quoted, the words 'having known' and 'having searched
out' (vijńāya; anuvidya) contain a mere reference to (not injunction of)
the apprehension of the meaning of texts, such apprehension subserving
meditation; while the injunction of meditation (which is the true
purport of the passages) is conveyed by the clauses 'let him practise
meditation' (prajńām kurvīta) and 'he knows it.' In the same way the
clause 'the Self is to be heard' is a mere anuvāda, i.e. a mere
reference to what is already established by other means; for a person
who has read the Veda observes that it contains instruction about
matters connected with certain definite purposes, and then on his own
account applies himself to methodical 'hearing,' in order definitely to
ascertain these matters; 'hearing' thus is established already. In the
same way the clause 'the Self is to be reflected upon' is a mere anuvāda
of reflection which is known as a means of confirming what one has
'heard.' It is therefore meditation only which all those texts enjoin.
In agreement with this a later Sūtra also says, 'Repetition more than
once, on account of instruction' (Ve. Sū. IV, I, I). That the knowledge
intended to be enjoined as the means of final release is of the nature
of meditation, we conclude from the circumstance that the terms
'knowing' and'meditating' are seen to be used in place of each other in
the earlier and later parts of Vedic texts. Compare the following
passages: 'Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman,' and 'he who knows
this shines and warms through his celebrity, fame, and glory of
countenance' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 1; 6). And 'He does not know him, for he
is not complete,' and 'Let men meditate on him as the Self (Bri. Up. I,
4, 7). And 'He who knows what he knows,' and 'Teach me the deity on
which you meditate' (Ch. Up. IV, 1, 6; 2, 2).

'Meditation' means steady remembrance, i.e. a continuity of steady
remembrance, uninterrupted like the flow of oil; in agreement with the
scriptural passage which declares steady remembrance to be the means of
release, 'on the attainment of remembrance all the ties are loosened'
(Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). Such remembrance is of the same character (form)
as seeing (intuition); for the passage quoted has the same purport as
the following one, 'The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are
solved, and all the works of that man perish when he has been seen who
is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). And this being so, we conclude that
the passage 'the Self is to be seen' teaches that 'Meditation' has the
character of 'seeing' or 'intuition.' And that remembrance has the
character of 'seeing' is due to the element of imagination
(representation) which prevails in it. All this has been set forth at
length by the Vākyakāra. 'Knowledge (vedana) means meditation (upāsana),
scripture using the word in that sense'; i.e. in all Upanishads that
knowledge which is enjoined as the means of final release is Meditation.
The Vākyakāra then propounds a pūrvapaksha (primā facie view), 'Once he
is to make the meditation, the matter enjoined by scripture being
accomplished thereby, as in the case of the prayājas and the like'; and
then sums up against this in the words 'but (meditation) is established
on account of the term meditation'; that means--knowledge repeated more
than once (i.e. meditation) is determined to be the means of Release.--
The Vākyakāra then goes on 'Meditation is steady remembrance, on the
ground of observation and statement.' That means--this knowledge, of the
form of meditation, and repeated more than once, is of the nature of
steady remembrance.

Such remembrance has been declared to be of the character of 'seeing,'
and this character of seeing consists in its possessing the character of
immediate presentation (pratyakshatā). With reference to remembrance,
which thus acquires the character of immediate presentation and is the
means of final release, scripture makes a further determination, viz. in
the passage Ka. Up. I, 2, 23, 'That Self cannot be gained by the study
of the Veda ("reflection"), nor by thought ("meditation"), nor by much
hearing. Whom the Self chooses, by him it may be gained; to him the Self
reveals its being.' This text says at first that mere hearing,
reflection, and meditation do not suffice to gain the Self, and then
declares, 'Whom the Self chooses, by him it may be gained.' Now a
'chosen' one means a most beloved person; the relation being that he by
whom that Self is held most dear is most dear to the Self. That the Lord
(bhagavān) himself endeavours that this most beloved person should gain
the Self, he himself declares in the following words, 'To those who are
constantly devoted and worship with love I give that knowledge by which
they reach me' (Bha. Gī. X, 10), and 'To him who has knowledge I am dear
above all things, and he is dear to me' (VII, 17). Hence, he who
possesses remembrance, marked by the character of immediate presentation
(sākshātkāra), and which itself is dear above all things since the
object remembered is such; he, we say, is chosen by the highest Self,
and by him the highest Self is gained. Steady remembrance of this kind
is designated by the word 'devotion' (bhakti); for this term has the
same meaning as upāsanā (meditation). For this reason scripture and
smriti agree in making the following declarations, 'A man knowing him
passes over death' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'Knowing him thus he here becomes
immortal' (Taitt. Ār. III, 12,7); 'Neither by the Vedas, nor by
austerities, nor by gifts, nor by sacrifice can I be so seen as thou
hast seen me. But by devotion exclusive I may in this form be known and
seen in truth, O Arjuna, and also be entered into' (Bha. Gī. XI, 53, 54);
'That highest Person, O Pārtha, may be obtained by exclusive devotion'
(VIII, 22).

That of such steady remembrance sacrifices and so on are means will be
declared later on (Ve. Sū. III, 4, 26). Although sacrifices and the like
are enjoined with a view to the origination of knowledge (in accordance
with the passage 'They desire to know,' Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22), it is only
knowledge in the form of meditation which--being daily practised,
constantly improved by repetition, and continued up to death--is the
means of reaching Brahman, and hence all the works connected with the
different conditions of life are to be performed throughout life only
for the purpose of originating such knowledge. This the Sūtrakāra
declares in Ve. Sū. IV, 1, 12; 16; III, 4, 33, and other places. The
Vākyakāra also declares that steady remembrance results only from
abstention, and so on; his words being 'This (viz. steady remembrance =
meditation) is obtained through abstention (viveka), freeness of mind
(vimoka), repetition (abhyāsa), works (kriyā), virtuous conduct
(kalyāna), freedom from dejection (anavasāda), absence of exultation
(anuddharsha); according to feasibility and scriptural statement.' The
Vākyakāra also gives definitions of all these terms. Abstention (viveka)
means keeping the body clean from all food, impure either owing to
species (such as the flesh of certain animals), or abode (such as food
belonging to a Kāndāla or the like), or accidental cause (such as food
into which a hair or the like has fallen). The scriptural passage
authorising this point is Ch. Up. VII, 26, 'The food being pure, the
mind becomes pure; the mind being pure, there results steady remembrance.'
Freeness of mind (vimoka) means absence of attachment to desires. The
authoritative passage here is 'Let him meditate with a calm mind' (Ch.
Up. III, 14, 1). Repetition means continued practice. For this point the
Bhāshya-kāra quotes an authoritative text from Smriti, viz.: 'Having
constantly been absorbed in the thought of that being' (sadā
tadbhāvabhāvitah; Bha. Gī. VIII, 6).--By 'works' (kriyā) is understood
the performance, according to one's ability, of the five great
sacrifices. The authoritative passages here are 'This person who
performs works is the best of those who know Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 1,
4); and 'Him Brāhmanas seek to know by recitation of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22).--By
virtuous conduct (kalyānāni) are meant truthfulness, honesty, kindness,
liberality, gentleness, absence of covetousness. Confirmatory texts are
'By truth he is to be obtained' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 5) and 'to them belongs
that pure Brahman-world' (Pr. Up. I, 16).--That lowness of spirit or
want of cheerfulness which results from unfavourable conditions of place
or time and the remembrance of causes of sorrow, is denoted by the term
'dejection'; the contrary of this is 'freedom from dejection.' The
relevant scriptural passage is 'This Self cannot be obtained by one
lacking in strength' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 4).--'Exultation' is that
satisfaction of mind which springs from circumstances opposite to those
just mentioned; the contrary is 'absence of exultation.' Overgreat
satisfaction also stands in the way (of meditation). The scriptural
passage for this is 'Calm, subdued,' &c. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).--What the
Vākyakāra means to say is therefore that knowledge is realised only
through the performance of the duly prescribed works, on the part of a
person fulfilling all the enumerated conditions.

Analogously another scriptural passage says 'He who knows both knowledge
and non-knowledge together, overcoming death by non-knowledge reaches
the Immortal through knowledge' (Īs. Up. II). Here the term
'non-knowledge' denotes the works enjoined on the different castes and
āsramas; and the meaning of the text is that, having discarded by such
works death, i.e. the previous works antagonistic to the origination of
knowledge, a man reaches the Immortal, i.e. Brahman, through knowledge.
The non-knowledge of which this passage speaks as being the means of
overcoming death can only mean that which is other than knowledge, viz.
prescribed works. The word has the same sense in the following passage:
'Firm in traditional knowledge he offered many sacrifices, leaning on
the knowledge of Brahman, so as to pass beyond death by non-knowledge'
(Vi. Pu. VI, 6, 12).--Antagonistic to knowledge (as said above) are all
good and evil actions, and hence--as equally giving rise to an
undesirable result--they may both be designated as evil. They stand in
the way of the origination of knowledge in so far as they strengthen the
elements of passion and darkness which are antagonistic to the element
of goodness which is the cause of the rise of knowledge. That evil works
stand in the way of such origination, the following scriptural text
declares: 'He makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds do
an evil deed' (Ka. Up. III, 8). That passion and darkness veil the
knowledge of truth while goodness on the other hand gives rise to it,
the Divine one has declared himself, in the passage 'From goodness
springs knowledge' (Bha. Gī. XIV, 17). Hence, in order that knowledge
may arise, evil works have to be got rid of, and this is effected by the
performance of acts of religious duty not aiming at some immediate
result (such as the heavenly world and the like); according to the text
'by works of religious duty he discards all evil.' Knowledge which is
the means of reaching Brahman, thus requires the works prescribed for
the different āsramas; and hence the systematic enquiry into works (i.
e. the Pūrva Mīmāmsā)--from which we ascertain the nature of the works
required and also the transitoriness and limitation of the fruits of
mere works--forms a necessary antecedent to the systematic enquiry into
Brahman. Moreover the discrimination of permanent and non-permanent
things, &c. (i.e. the tetrad of 'means' mentioned above, p. 11) cannot
be accomplished without the study of the Mīmāmsā; for unless we
ascertain all the distinctions of fruits of works, means, modes of
procedure and qualification (on the part of the agent) we can hardly
understand the true nature of works, their fruits, the transitoriness or
non-transitoriness of the latter, the permanence of the Self, and
similar matters. That those conditions (viz. nityānityavastuviveka,
sama, dama, &c.) are 'means' must be determined on the basis of viniyoga
('application' which determines the relation of principal and
subordinate matters--angin and anga); and this viniyoga which depends on
direct scriptural statement (sruti), inferential signs (linga), and so
on, is treated of in the third book of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā-sūtras. And
further we must, in this connexion, consider also the meditations on the
Udgītha and similar things--which, although aiming at the success of
works, are of the nature of reflections on Brahman (which is viewed in
them under various forms)--and as such have reference to knowledge of
Brahman. Those works also (with which these meditations are connected)
aim at no special results of their own, and produce and help to perfect
the knowledge of Brahman: they are therefore particularly connected with
the enquiry into Brahman. And that these meditations presuppose an
understanding of the nature of works is admitted by every one.




THE GREAT PŪRVAPAKSHA.

THE ONLY REALITY IS BRAHMAN.

Brahman, which is pure intelligence and opposed to all difference,
constitutes the only reality; and everything else, i.e. the plurality of
manifold knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, and acts of knowledge
depending on those two, is only imagined on (or 'in') that Brahman, and
is essentially false.

'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only
without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'The higher knowledge is that by
which the Indestructible is apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5); 'That which
cannot be seen nor seized, which has no eyes nor ears, no hands nor feet,
the permanent, the all-pervading, the most subtle, the imperishable
which the wise regard as the source of all beings' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 6);
'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'He
who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without
taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'By whom it is not thought, by him it is
thought; he by whom it is thought knows it not. It is not known by those
who know it, known by those who do not know it' (Ke. Up. II, 3); 'Thou
mayest not see the seer of sight; thou mayest not think the thinker of
thought' (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1);
'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity
whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees
any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as
it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all
of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom,
should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely
which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of
clay) is clay merely' (Ch. Up. VI, 1, 4); 'for if he makes but the
smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7);--
the two following Vedānta-sūtras: III, 2, 11; III, 2, 3--the following
passages from the Vishnu-purāna: 'In which all difference vanishes,
which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by
the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); 'Him whose
essential nature is knowledge, who is stainless in reality'; 'Him who,
owing to erroneous view, abides in the form of things' (I, 2, 6); 'the
Reality thou art alone, there is no other, O Lord of the world!--
whatever matter is seen belongs to thee whose being is knowledge; but
owing to their erroneous opinion the non-devout look on it as the form
of the world. This whole world has knowledge for its essential nature,
but the Unwise viewing it as being of the nature of material things are
driven round on the ocean of delusion. Those however who possess true
knowledge and pure minds see this whole world as having knowledge for
its Self, as thy form, O highest Lord!' (Vi. Pu. I, 4, 38 ff.).--'Of
that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the
knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain
duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'If there is some other one,
different from me, then it can be said, "I am this and that one is
another"' (II, 13, 86); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the
flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of
the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal
Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is
his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus
instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition
of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference
is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction
between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).--The following
passages from the Bhagavad-Gītā: 'I am the Self dwelling within all
beings' (X, 20); 'Know me to be the soul within all bodies' (XIII, 2);
'Being there is none, movable or immovable, which is without me' (X, 39).--
All these and other texts, the purport of which clearly is instruction
as to the essential nature of things, declare that Brahman only, i.e.
non-differenced pure intelligence is real, while everything else is
false.

The appearance of plurality is due to avidyā.

'Falsehood' (mithyātva) belongs to what admits of being terminated by
the cognition of the real thing--such cognition being preceded by
conscious activity (not by mere absence of consciousness or knowledge).
The snake, e.g. which has for its substrate a rope or the like is false;
for it is due to an imperfection (dosha) that the snake is imagined in
(or 'on') the rope. In the same way this entire world, with its
distinctions of gods, men, animals, inanimate matter, and so on, is,
owing to an imperfection, wrongly imagined in the highest Brahman whose
substance is mere intelligence, and therefore is false in so far as it
may be sublated by the cognition of the nature of the real Brahman. What
constitutes that imperfection is beginningless Nescience (avidyā), which,
hiding the truth of things, gives rise to manifold illusions, and cannot
be defined either as something that is or as something that is not.--'By
the Untrue they are hidden; of them which are true the Untrue is the
covering' (Ch, Up. VIII, 3, 1); 'Know Māya to be Prakriti, and the great
Lord him who is associated with Māya' (Svet. Up. IV, 10); 'Indra appears
manifold through the Māyās' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'My Māya is hard to
overcome' (Bha. Gī. VII, 14); 'When the soul slumbering in beginningless
Māyā awakes' (Gau. Kā. I, 16).--These and similar texts teach that it is
through beginningless Māyā that to Brahman which truly is pure
non-differenced intelligence its own nature hides itself, and that it
sees diversity within itself. As has been said, 'Because the Holy One is
essentially of the nature of intelligence, the form of all, but not
material; therefore know that all particular things like rocks, oceans,
hills and so on, have proceeded from intelligence [FOOTNOTE 22:1] But
when, on the cessation of all work, everything is only pure intelligence
in its own proper form, without any imperfections; then no differences--
the fruit of the tree of wishes--any longer exist between things.
Therefore nothing whatever, at any place or any time, exists apart from
intelligence: intelligence, which is one only, is viewed as manifold by
those whose minds are distracted by the effects of their own works.
Intelligence pure, free from stain, free from grief, free from all
contact with desire and other affections, everlastingly one is the
highest Lord--Vāsudeva apart from whom nothing exists. I have thus
declared to you the lasting truth of things--that intelligence only is
true and everything else untrue. And that also which is the cause of
ordinary worldly existence has been declared to you' (Vi. Pu. II, 12,
39, 40, 43-45).

Avidyā is put an end to by true Knowledge.

Other texts declare that this Nescience comes to an end through the
cognition of the essential unity of the Self with Brahman which is
nothing but non-differenced intelligence. 'He does not again go to death;'
'He sees this as one;' 'He who sees this does not see death' (Ch. Up.
VI, 27); 'When he finds freedom from fear and rest in that which is
invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the
fearless' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'The fetter of the heart is broken, all
doubts are solved and all his works perish when he has been beheld who
is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); 'He knows Brahman, he becomes
Brahman only' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Knowing him only a man passes over
death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8). In these and
similar passages, the term 'death' denotes Nescience; analogously to the
use of the term in the following words of Sanatsujāta, 'Delusion I call
death; and freedom from delusion I call immortality' (Sanatsuj. II, 5).
The knowledge again of the essential unity and non-difference of Brahman--
which is ascertained from decisive texts such as 'The True, knowledge,
the Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Knowledge, bliss is
Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28)--is confirmed by other passages, such as
'Now if a man meditates on another deity, thinking the deity is one and
he another, he does not know' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10); 'Let men meditate
upon him as the Self (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7); 'Thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7); 'Am I thou, O holy deity? and art thou me, O holy deity?'; 'What I
am that is he; what he is that am I.'--This the Sūtrakāra himself will
declare 'But as the Self (scriptural texts) acknowledge and make us
apprehend (the Lord)' (Ve. Sū. IV, 1, 3). Thus the Vākyakāra also, 'It
is the Self--thus one should apprehend (everything), for everything is
effected by that.' And to hold that by such cognition of the oneness of
Brahman essentially false bondage, together with its cause, comes to an
end, is only reasonable.

Scripture is of greater force than Perception

But, an objection is raised--how can knowledge, springing from the
sacred texts, bring about a cessation of the view of difference, in
manifest opposition to the evidence of Perception?--How then, we rejoin,
can the knowledge that this thing is a rope and not a snake bring about,
in opposition to actual perception, the cessation of the (idea of the)
snake?--You will perhaps reply that in this latter case there is a
conflict between two forms of perception, while in the case under
discussion the conflict is between direct perception and Scripture which
is based on perception. But against this we would ask the question how,
in the case of a conflict between two equal cognitions, we decide as to
which of the two is refuted (sublated) by the other. If--as is to be
expected--you reply that what makes the difference between the two is
that one of them is due to a defective cause while the other is not: we
point out that this distinction holds good also in the case of Scripture
and perception being in conflict. It is not considerations as to the
equality of conflicting cognitions, as to their being dependent or
independent, and so on, that determine which of the two sublates the
other; if that were the case, the perception which presents to us the
flame of the lamp as one only would not be sublated by the cognition
arrived at by inference that there is a succession of different flames.
Wherever there is a conflict between cognitions based on two different
means of knowledge we assign the position of the 'sublated one' to that
which admits of being accounted for in some other way; while that
cognition which affords no opening for being held unauthoritative and
cannot be accounted for in another way, is the 'sublating one [FOOTNOTE
25:1].' This is the principle on which the relation between 'what
sublates' and 'what is sublated' is decided everywhere. Now apprehension
of Brahman--which is mere intelligence, eternal, pure, free,
self-luminous--is effected by Scripture which rests on endless unbroken
tradition, cannot therefore be suspected of any, even the least,
imperfection, and hence cannot be non-authoritative; the state of
bondage, on the other hand, with its manifold distinctions is proved by
Perception, Inference, and so on, which are capable of imperfections and
therefore may be non-authoritative. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that the state of bondage is put an end to by the apprehension
of Brahman. And that imperfection of which Perception--through which we
apprehend a world of manifold distinctions--may be assumed to be
capable, is so-called Nescience, which consists in the beginningless
wrong imagination of difference.--Well then--a further objection is
raised--let us admit that Scripture is perfect because resting on an
endless unbroken tradition; but must we then not admit that texts
evidently presupposing the view of duality, as e.g. 'Let him who desires
the heavenly world offer the Jyotishtoma-sacrifice'--are liable to
refutation?--True, we reply. As in the case of the Udgātri and
Pratihartri breaking the chain (not at the same time, but) in
succession [FOOTNOTE 26:1], so here also the earlier texts (which refer
to duality and transitory rewards) are sublated by the later texts which
teach final release, and are not themselves sublated by anything else.

The texts which represent Brahman as devoid of qualities have greater
force

The same reasoning applies to those passages in the Vedānta-texts which
inculcate meditation on the qualified Brahman, since the highest Brahman
is without any qualities.--But consider such passages as 'He who
cognises all, who knows all' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5); how can these passages, which clearly aim at defining the
nature of Brahman, be liable to refutation?--Owing to the greater weight,
we reply, of those texts which set forth Brahman as devoid of qualities.
'It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8);
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'That
which is free from qualities,' 'that which is free from stain'--these
and similar texts convey the notion of Brahman being changeless, eternal
intelligence devoid of all difference; while the other texts--quoted
before--teach the qualified Brahman. And there being a conflict between
the two sets of passages, we--according to the Mīmāmsā principle
referred to above--decide that the texts referring to Brahman as devoid
of qualities are of greater force, because they are later in order
[FOOTNOTE 27:1] than those which speak of Brahman as having qualities.
Thus everything is settled. The text Taitt. Up. II, 1 refers to Brahman
as devoid of qualities.

But--an objection is raised--even the passage 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman' intimates certain qualities of Brahman, viz. true
being, knowledge, infinity!--Not so, we reply. From the circumstance
that all the terms of the sentence stand in co-ordination, it follows
that they convey the idea of one matter (sense) only. If against this
you urge that the sentence may convey the idea of one matter only, even
if directly expressing a thing distinguished by several qualities; we
must remark that you display an ignorance of the meaning of language
which appears to point to some weakmindedness on your part. A sentence
conveys the idea of one matter (sense) only when all its constitutive
words denote one and the same thing; if, on the other hand, it expresses
a thing possessing several attributes, the difference of these
attributes necessarily leads to a difference in meaning on the part of
the individual words, and then the oneness of meaning of the sentence is
lost.--But from your view of the passage it would follow that the
several words are mere synonyms!--Give us your attention, we reply, and
learn that several words may convey one meaning without being idle
synonyms. From the determination of the unity of purport of the whole
sentence [FOOTNOTE 27:2] we conclude that the several words, applied to
one thing, aim at expressing what is opposite in nature to whatever is
contrary to the meanings of the several words, and that thus they have
meaning and unity of meaning and yet are not mere synonyms. The details
are as follows. Brahman is to be defined as what is contrary in nature
to all other things. Now whatever is opposed to Brahman is virtually set
aside by the three words (constituting the definition of Brahman in the
Taittiriya-text). The word 'true' (or 'truly being') has the purport of
distinguishing Brahman from whatever things have no truth, as being the
abodes of change; the word 'knowledge' distinguishes Brahman from all
non-sentient things whose light depends on something else (which are not
self-luminous); and the word 'infinite' distinguishes it from whatever
is limited in time or space or nature. Nor is this 'distinction' some
positive or negative attribute of Brahman, it rather is just Brahman
itself as opposed to everything else; just as the distinction of white
colour from black and other colours is just the true nature of white,
not an attribute of it. The three words constituting the text thus _have_
a meaning, have _one_ meaning, and are non-synonymous, in so far as they
convey the essential distinction of one thing, viz. Brahman from
everything else. The text thus declares the one Brahman which is
self-luminous and free from all difference. On this interpretation of
the text we discern its oneness in purport with other texts, such as
'Being only this was in the beginning, one only, without a second.'
Texts such as 'That from whence these beings are born' (Taitt. Up. III,
1); 'Being only this was in the beginning' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Self
alone was this in the beginning' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 1), &c., describe
Brahman as the cause of the world; and of this Brahman the Taittirīya
passage 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' gives the strict
definition.

In agreement with the principle that all sākhās teach the same doctrine
we have to understand that, in all the texts which speak of Brahman as
cause, Brahman must be taken as being 'without a second', i.e. without
any other being of the same or a different kind; and the text which aims
at defining Brahman has then to be interpreted in accordance with this
characteristic of Brahman, viz. its being without a second. The
statement of the Chāndogya as to Brahman being without a second must
also be taken to imply that Brahman is non-dual as far as qualities are
concerned; otherwise it would conflict with those passages which speak
of Brahman as being without qualities and without stain. We therefore
conclude that the defining Taittirīya-text teaches Brahman to be an
absolutely homogeneous substance.

But, the above explanation of the passage being accepted, it follows
that the words 'true being,' 'knowledge,' &c., have to be viewed as
abandoning their direct sense, and merely suggesting a thing distinct in
nature from all that is opposite (to what the three words directly
denote), and this means that we resort to so-called implication (implied
meaning, lakshanā)!--What objection is there to such a proceeding? we
reply. The force of the general purport of a sentence is greater than
that of the direct denotative power of the simple terms, and it is
generally admitted that the purport of grammatical co-ordination is
oneness (of the matter denoted by the terms co-ordinated).--But we never
observe that all words of a sentence are to be understood in an implied
sense!--Is it then not observed, we reply, that _one_ word is to be
taken in its implied meaning if otherwise it would contradict the
purport of the whole sentence? And if the purport of the sentence, which
is nothing but an aggregate of words employed together, has once been
ascertained, why should we not take two or three or all words in an
implied sense--just as we had taken one--and thus make them fit in with
the general purport? In agreement herewith those scholars who explain to
us the sense of imperative sentences, teach that in imperative sentences
belonging to ordinary speech all words have an implied meaning only (not
their directly denotative meaning). For, they maintain, imperative forms
have their primary meaning only in (Vedic) sentences which enjoin
something not established by other means; and hence in ordinary speech
the effect of the action is conveyed by implication only. The other
words also, which form part of those imperative sentences and denote
matters connected with the action, have their primary meaning only if
connected with an action not established by other means; while if
connected with an ordinary action they have a secondary, implied,
meaning only [FOOTNOTE 30:1]. Perception reveals to us non-differenced
substance only

We have so far shown that in the case of a conflict between Scripture
and Perception and the other instruments of knowledge, Scripture is of
greater force. The fact, however, is that no such conflict is observed
to exist, since Perception itself gives rise to the apprehension of a
non-differenced Brahman whose nature is pure Being.--But how can it be
said that Perception, which has for its object things of various kinds--
and accordingly expresses itself in judgments such as 'Here is a jar,'
'There is a piece of cloth'--causes the apprehension of mere Being? If
there were no apprehension of difference, all cognitions would have one
and the same object, and therefore would give rise to one judgment only--
as takes place when one unbroken perceptional cognition is continued for
some time.--True. We therefore have to enquire in what way, in the
judgment 'here is a jar,' an assertion is made about being as well as
some special form of being. These implied judgments cannot both be
founded on perception, for they are the results of acts of cognition
occupying different moments of time, while the perceptional cognition
takes place in one moment (is instantaneous). We therefore must decide
whether it is the essential nature of the jar, or its difference from
other things, that is the object of perception. And we must adopt the
former alternative, because the apprehension of difference presupposes
the apprehension of the essential nature of the thing, and, in addition,
the remembrance of its counterentities (i.e. the things from which the
given thing differs). Hence difference is not apprehended by Perception;
and all judgments and propositions relative to difference are founded on
error only.

Difference--bheda--does not admit of logical definition

The Logicians, moreover, are unable to give a definition of such a thing
as 'difference.' Difference cannot in the first place be the essential
nature (of that which differs); for from that it would follow that on
the apprehension of the essential nature of a thing there would at once
arise not only the judgment as to that essential nature but also
judgments as to its difference from everything else.--But, it may be
objected to this, even when the essential nature of a thing is
apprehended, the judgment 'this thing is different from other things'
depends on the remembrance of its counterentities, and as long as this
remembrance does not take place so long the judgment of difference is
not formed!--Such reasoning, we reply, is inadmissible. He who maintains
that 'difference' is nothing but 'essential nature' has no right to
assume a dependence on counterentities since, according to him,
essential nature and difference are the same, i.e. nothing but essential
nature: the judgment of difference can, on his view, depend on
counterentities no more than the judgment of essential nature does. His
view really implies that the two words 'the jar' and 'different' (in the
judgment 'the jar is different') are synonymous, just as the words
'hasta' and 'kara' are (both of which mean 'hand').

Nor, in the second place, can 'difference' be held to be an attribute
(dharma). For if it were that, we should have to assume that
'difference' possesses difference (i.e. is different) from essential
nature; for otherwise it would be the same as the latter. And this
latter difference would have to be viewed as an attribute of the first
difference, and this would lead us on to a third difference, and so in
infinitum. And the view of 'difference' being an attribute would further
imply that difference is apprehended on the apprehension of a thing
distinguished by attributes such as generic character and so on, and at
the same time that the thing thus distinguished is apprehended on the
apprehension of difference; and this would constitute a logical seesaw.--
'Difference' thus showing itself incapable of logical definition, we are
confirmed in our view that perception reveals mere 'Being' only.

Moreover, it appears that in states of consciousness such as 'Here is a
jar,' 'There is a piece of cloth,' 'The jar is perceived,' 'The piece of
cloth is perceived,' that which constitutes the things is Being
(existence; sattā) and perception (or 'consciousness'; anubhūti). And we
observe that it is pure Being only which persists in all states of
cognition: this pure Being alone, therefore, is _real_. The differences,
on the other hand, which do not persist, are unreal. The case is
analogous to that of the snake-rope. The rope which persists as a
substrate is real, while the non-continuous things (which by wrong
imagination are superimposed on the rope) such as a snake, a cleft in
the ground, a watercourse, and so on, are unreal.

But--our adversary objects--the instance is not truly analogous. In the
case of the snake-rope the non-reality of the snake results from the
snake's being sublated (bādhita) by the cognition of the true nature of
the substrate 'This is a rope, not a snake'; it does not result from the
non-continuousness of the snake. In the same way the reality of the rope
does not follow from its persistence, but from the fact of its being not
sublated (by another cognition). But what, we ask, establishes the
non-reality of jars and pieces of cloth?--All are agreed, we reply, that
we observe, in jars and similar things, individual difference
(vyāvritti, literally 'separation,' 'distinction'). The point to decide
is of what nature such difference is. Does it not mean that the judgment
'This is a jar' implies the negation of pieces of cloth and other
things? But this means that by this judgment pieces of cloth and other
things are sublated (bādhita). Individual difference (vyāvritti) thus
means the cessation (or absence), due to sublation, of certain objects
of cognition, and it proves the non-reality of whatever has
non-continuous existence; while on the other hand, pure Being, like the
rope, persists non-sublated. Hence everything that is additional to pure
Being is non-real.--This admits of being expressed in technical form.
'Being' is real because it persists, as proved by the case of the rope
in the snake-rope; jars and similar things are non-real because they are
non-continuous, as proved by the case of the snake that has the rope for
its substrate.

From all this it follows that persisting consciousness only has real
being; it alone is.

Being and consciousness are one. Consciousness is svayamprakāsa.

But, our adversary objects, as mere Being is the object of consciousness,
it is different therefrom (and thus there exists after all 'difference'
or 'plurality').--Not so, we reply. That there is no such thing as
'difference,' we have already shown above on the grounds that it is not
the object of perception, and moreover incapable of definition. It
cannot therefore be proved that 'Being' is the object of consciousness.
Hence Consciousness itself is 'Being'--that which is.--This
consciousness is self-proved, just because it is consciousness. Were it
proved through something else, it would follow that like jars and
similar things it is not consciousness. Nor can there be assumed, for
consciousness, the need of another act of consciousness (through which
its knowledge would be established); for it shines forth (prakāsate)
through its own being. While it exists, consciousness--differing therein
from jars and the like--is never observed not to shine forth, and it
cannot therefore be held to depend, in its shining forth, on something
else.--You (who object to the above reasoning) perhaps hold the
following view:--even when consciousness has arisen, it is the object
only which shines forth--a fact expressed in sentences such as: the jar
is perceived. When a person forms the judgment 'This is a jar,' he is
not at the time conscious of a consciousness which is not an object and
is not of a definite character. Hence the existence of consciousness is
the reason which brings about the 'shining forth' of jars and other
objects, and thus has a similar office as the approximation of the
object to the eye or the other organs of sense (which is another
condition of perceptive consciousness). After this the existence of
consciousness is inferred on the ground that the shining forth of the
object is (not permanent, but) occasional only [FOOTNOTE 34:1]. And
should this argumentation be objected to on the ground of its implying
that consciousness--which is essentially of the nature of intelligence--
is something non-intelligent like material things, we ask you to define
this negation of non-intelligence (which you declare to be
characteristic of consciousness). Have we, perhaps, to understand by it
the invariable concomitance of existence and shining forth? If so, we
point out that this invariable concomitance is also found in the case of
pleasure and similar affections; for when pleasure and so on exist at
all, they never are non-perceived (i.e. they exist in so far only as we
are conscious of them). It is thus clear that we have no consciousness
of consciousness itself--just as the tip of a finger, although touching
other things, is incapable of touching itself.

All this reasoning, we reply, is entirely spun out of your own fancy,
without any due consideration of the power of consciousness. The fact is,
that in perceiving colour and other qualities of things, we are not
aware of a 'shining forth' as an attribute of those things, and as
something different from consciousness; nor can the assumption of an
attribute of things called 'light,' or 'shining forth,' be proved in any
way, since the entire empirical world itself can be proved only through
consciousness, the existence of which we both admit. Consciousness,
therefore, is not something which is inferred or proved through some
other act of knowledge; but while proving everything else it is proved
by itself. This may be expressed in technical form as follows--
Consciousness is, with regard to its attributes and to the empirical
judgments concerning it, independent of any other thing, because through
its connexion with other things it is the cause of their attributes and
the empirical judgments concerning them. For it is a general principle
that of two things that which through its connexion with the other is
the cause of the attributes of--and the empirical judgments about--the
latter, is itself independent of that other as to those two points. We
see e.g. that colour, through its conjunction with earth and the like,
produces in them the quality of visibility, but does not itself depend
for its visibility on conjunction with colour. Hence consciousness is
itself the cause of its own 'shining forth,' as well as of the
empirically observed shining forth of objects such as jars and the like.

Consciousness is eternal and incapable of change.

This self-luminous consciousness, further, is eternal, for it is not
capable of any form of non-existence--whether so--called antecedent
non-existence or any other form. This follows from its being
self-established. For the antecedent non-existence of self-established
consciousness cannot be apprehended either through consciousness or
anything else. If consciousness itself gave rise to the apprehension of
its own non-existence, it could not do so in so far as 'being,' for that
would contradict its being; if it is, i.e. if its non-existence is not,
how can it give rise to the idea of its non-existence? Nor can it do so
if not being; for if consciousness itself is not, how can it furnish a
proof for its own non-existence? Nor can the non-existence of
consciousness be apprehended through anything else; for consciousness
cannot be the object of anything else. Any instrument of knowledge
proving the non-existence of consciousness, could do so only by making
consciousness its object--'this is consciousness'; but consciousness, as
being self-established, does not admit of that objectivation which is
implied in the word 'this,' and hence its previous non-existence cannot
be proved by anything lying outside itself.

As consciousness thus does not admit of antecedent non-existence, it
further cannot be held to originate, and hence also all those other
states of being which depend on origination cannot be predicated of it.

As consciousness is beginningless, it further does not admit of any
plurality within itself; for we observe in this case the presence of
something which is contrary to what invariably accompanies plurality
(this something being 'beginninglessness' which is contrary to the
quality of having a beginning--which quality invariably accompanies
plurality). For we never observe a thing characterised by plurality to
be without a beginning.--And moreover difference, origination, &c., are
objects of consciousness, like colour and other qualities, and hence
cannot be attributes of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness being
essentially consciousness only, nothing else that is an object of
consciousness can be its attribute. The conclusion is that consciousness
is free from difference of any kind.

The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject
is due to the unreal ahamkāra.

From this it further follows that there is no substrate of
consciousness--different from consciousness itself--such as people
ordinarily mean when speaking of a 'knower.' It is self-luminous
consciousness itself which constitutes the so-called 'knower.' This
follows therefrom also that consciousness is not non-intelligent (jada);
for non-intelligence invariably accompanies absence of Selfhood
(anātmatva); hence, non-intelligence being absent in consciousness,
consciousness is not non-Self, that means, it is the Self.

But, our adversary again objects, the consciousness which expresses
itself in the judgment 'I know,' proves that the quality of being a
'knower' belongs to consciousness!--By no means, we reply. The
attribution to consciousness of this quality rests on error, no less
than the attribution, to the shell, of the quality of being silver.
Consciousness cannot stand in the relation of an agent toward itself:
the attribute of being a knowing agent is erroneously imputed to it--an
error analogous to that expressed in the judgment 'I am a man,' which
identifies the Self of a person with the outward aggregate of matter
that bears the external characteristics of humanity. To be a 'knower'
means to be the agent in the action of knowing; and this is something
essentially changeful and non-intelligent (jada), having its abode in
the ahamkāra, which is itself a thing subject to change. How, on the
other hand, could such agency possibly belong to the changeless
'witness' (of all change, i.e. consciousness) whose nature is pure Being?
That agency cannot be an attribute of the Self follows therefrom also
that, like colour and other qualities, agency depends, for its own proof,
on seeing, i.e. consciousness.

That the Self does not fall within the sphere (is not an object of), the
idea of 'I' is proved thereby also that in deep sleep, swoon, and
similar states, the idea of the 'I' is absent, while the consciousness
of the Self persists. Moreover, if the Self were admitted to be an agent
and an object of the idea of 'I,' it would be difficult to avoid the
conclusion that like the body it is non-intelligent, something merely
outward ('being for others only, not for itself') and destitute of
Selfhood. That from the body, which is the object of the idea of 'I,'
and known to be an agent, there is different that Self which enjoys the
results of the body's actions, viz. the heavenly word, and so on, is
acknowledged by all who admit the validity of the instruments of
knowledge; analogously, therefore, we must admit that different from the
knower whom we understand by the term 'I,' is the 'witnessing' inward
Self. The non-intelligent ahamkāra thus merely serves to manifest the
nature of non-changing consciousness, and it effects this by being its
abode; for it is the proper quality of manifesting agents to manifest
the objects manifested, in so far as the latter abide in them. A mirror,
e.g., or a sheet of water, or a certain mass of matter, manifests a face
or the disc of the moon (reflected in the mirror or water) or the
generic character of a cow (impressed on the mass of matter) in so far
as all those things abide in them.--In this way, then, there arises the
erroneous view that finds expression in the judgment 'I know.'--Nor must
you, in the way of objection, raise the question how self-luminous
consciousness is to be manifested by the non-intelligent ahamkāra, which
rather is itself manifested by consciousness; for we observe that the
surface of the hand, which itself is manifested by the rays of sunlight
falling on it, at the same time manifests those rays. This is clearly
seen in the case of rays passing through the interstices of network; the
light of those rays is intensified by the hand on which they fall, and
which at the same time is itself manifested by the rays.

It thus appears that the 'knowing agent,' who is denoted by the 'I,' in
the judgment 'I know,' constitutes no real attribute of the Self, the
nature of which is pure intelligence. This is also the reason why the
consciousness of Egoity does not persist in the states of deep sleep and
final release: in those states this special form of consciousness passes
away, and the Self appears in its true nature, i.e. as pure
consciousness. Hence a person who has risen from deep, dreamless sleep
reflects, 'Just now I was unconscious of myself.'

Summing up of the pūrvapaksha view.

As the outcome of all this, we sum up our view as follows.--Eternal,
absolutely non-changing consciousness, whose nature is pure
non-differenced intelligence, free from all distinction whatever, owing
to error illusorily manifests itself (vivarttate) as broken up into
manifold distinctions--knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, acts of
knowledge. And the purpose for which we enter on the consideration of
the Vedānta-texts is utterly to destroy what is the root of that error,
i.e. Nescience, and thus to obtain a firm knowledge of the oneness of
Brahman, whose nature is mere intelligence--free, pure, eternal.

[FOOTNOTE 22:1. In agreement with the use made of this passage by the
Pūrvapakshin, vijńāna must here be understood in the sense of avidyā.
Vijńānasabdena vividham jńāyate-neneti karanavyutpattyā-vidyā-bhidhiyate.
Sru. Pra.]

[FOOTNOTE 25:1. The distinction is illustrated by the different views
Perception and Inference cause us to take of the nature of the flame of
the lamp. To Perception the flame, as long as it burns, seems one and
the same: but on the ground of the observation that the different
particles of the wick and the oil are consumed in succession, we infer
that there are many distinct flames succeeding one another. And we
accept the Inference as valid, and as sublating or refuting the
immediate perception, because the perceived oneness of the flame admits
of being accounted for 'otherwise,' viz. on the ground of the many
distinct flames originating in such rapid succession that the eye
mistakes them for one. The inference on the other hand does not admit of
being explained in another way.]

[FOOTNOTE 26:1. The reference is to the point discussed Pū. Mī. Sū. VI,
5, 54 (Jaim. Nyā. Mālā Vistara, p. 285).]

[FOOTNOTE 27:1. The texts which deny all qualities of Brahman are later
in order than the texts which refer to Brahman as qualified, because
denial presupposes that which is to be denied.]

[FOOTNOTE 27:2. The unity of purport of the sentence is inferred from
its constituent words having the same case-ending.]

[FOOTNOTE 30:1. The theory here referred to is held by some of the
Mīmāmsakas. The imperative forms of the verb have their primary meaning,
i.e. the power of originating action, only in Vedic sentences which
enjoin the performance of certain actions for the bringing about of
certain ends: no other means of knowledge but the Veda informing us that
such ends can be accomplished by such actions. Nobody, e.g. would offer
a soma sacrifice in order to obtain the heavenly world, were he not told
by the Veda to do so. In ordinary life, on the other hand, no imperative
possesses this entirely unique originative force, since any action which
may be performed in consequence of a command may be prompted by other
motives as well: it is, in technical Indian language, established
already, apart from the command, by other means of knowledge. The man
who, e.g. is told to milk a cow might have proceeded to do so, apart
from the command, for reasons of his own. Imperatives in ordinary speech
are therefore held not to have their primary meaning, and this
conclusion is extended, somewhat unwarrantably one should say, to all
the words entering into an imperative clause.]

[FOOTNOTE 34:1. Being not permanent but occasional, it is an effect only,
and as such must have a cause.]




THE GREAT SIDDHĀNTA.

This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow
and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical
alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular
qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person
revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the
impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the
nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them,
and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods
depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge.
The theory therefore must needs be rejected by all those who, through
texts, perception and the other means of knowledge--assisted by sound
reasoning--have an insight into the true nature of things.




There is no proof of non-differenced substance.

To enter into details.--Those who maintain the doctrine of a substance
devoid of all difference have no right to assert that this or that is a
proof of such a substance; for all means of right knowledge have for
their object things affected with difference.--Should any one taking his
stand on the received views of his sect, assert that the theory of a
substance free from all difference (does not require any further means
of proof but) is immediately established by one's own consciousness; we
reply that he also is refuted by the fact, warranted by the witness of
the Self, that all consciousness implies difference: all states of
consciousness have for their object something that is marked by some
difference, as appears in the case of judgments like 'I saw this.' And
should a state of consciousness--although directly apprehended as
implying difference--be determined by some fallacious reasoning to be
devoid of difference, this determination could be effected only by means
of some special attributes additional to the quality of mere Being; and
owing to these special qualities on which the determination depends,
that state of consciousness would clearly again be characterised by
difference. The meaning of the mentioned determination could thus only
be that of a thing affected with certain differences some other
differences are denied; but manifestly this would not prove the
existence of a thing free from all difference. To thought there at any
rate belongs the quality of being thought and self-illuminatedness, for
the knowing principle is observed to have for its essential nature the
illumining (making to shine forth) of objects. And that also in the
states of deep sleep, swoon, &c., consciousness is affected with
difference we shall prove, in its proper place, in greater detail.
Moreover you yourself admit that to consciousness there actually belong
different attributes such as permanency (oneness, self-luminousness, &c.
), and of these it cannot be shown that they are only Being in general.
And even if the latter point were admitted, we observe that there takes
place a discussion of different views, and you yourself attempt to prove
your theory by means of the differences between those views and your own.
It therefore must be admitted that reality is affected with difference
well established by valid means of proof.




Sabda proves difference.

As to sound (speech; sabda) it is specially apparent that it possesses
the power of denoting only such things as are affected with difference.
Speech operates with words and sentences. Now a word (pada) originates
from the combination of a radical element and a suffix, and as these two
elements have different meanings it necessarily follows that the word
itself can convey only a sense affected with difference. And further,
the plurality of words is based on plurality of meanings; the sentence
therefore which is an aggregate of words expresses some special
combination of things (meanings of words), and hence has no power to
denote a thing devoid of all difference.--The conclusion is that sound
cannot be a means of knowledge for a thing devoid of all difference.




Pratyaksha--even of the nirvikalpaka kind--proves difference.

Perception in the next place--with its two subdivisions of
non-determinate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka)
perception--also cannot be a means of knowledge for things devoid of
difference. Determinate perception clearly has for its object things
affected with difference; for it relates to that which is distinguished
by generic difference and so on. But also non-determinate perception has
for its object only what is marked with difference; for it is on the
basis of non-determinate perception that the object distinguished by
generic character and so on is recognised in the act of determinate
perception. Non-determinate perception is the apprehension of the object
in so far as destitute of some differences but not of all difference.
Apprehension of the latter kind is in the first place not observed ever
to take place, and is in the second place impossible: for all
apprehension by consciousness takes place by means of some distinction
'This is such and such.' Nothing can be apprehended apart from some
special feature of make or structure, as e.g. the triangularly shaped
dewlap in the case of cows. The true distinction between non-determinate
and determinate perception is that the former is the apprehension of the
first individual among a number of things belonging to the same class,
while the latter is the apprehension of the second, third, and so on,
individuals. On the apprehension of the first individual cow the
perceiving person is not conscious of the fact that the special shape
which constitutes the generic character of the class 'cows' extends to
the present individual also; while this special consciousness arises in
the case of the perception of the second and third cow. The perception
of the second individual thus is 'determinate' in so far as it is
determined by a special attribute, viz. the extension, to the
perception, of the generic character of a class--manifested in a certain
outward shape--which connects this act of perception with the earlier
perception (of the first individual); such determination being
ascertained only on the apprehension of the second individual. Such
extension or continuance of a certain generic character is, on the other
hand, not apprehended on the apprehension of the first individual, and
perception of the latter kind thence is 'non-determinate.' That it is
such is not due to non-apprehension of structure, colour, generic
character and so on, for all these attributes are equally objects of
sensuous perception (and hence perceived as belonging to the first
individual also). Moreover that which possesses structure cannot be
perceived apart from the structure, and hence in the case of the
apprehension of the first individual there is already perception of
structure, giving rise to the judgment 'The thing is such and such.' In
the case of the second, third, &c., individuals, on the other hand, we
apprehend, in addition to the thing possessing structure and to the
structure itself, the special attribute of the persistence of the
generic character, and hence the perception is 'determinate.' From all
this it follows that perception never has for its object that which is
devoid of all difference.




The bhedābheda view is untenable.

The same arguments tend to refute the view that there is difference and
absence of difference at the same time (the so-called bhedābheda view).
Take the judgment 'This is such and such'; how can we realise here the
non-difference of 'being this' and 'being such and such'? The 'such and
such' denotes a peculiar make characterised, e.g. by a dewlap, the
'this' denotes the thing distinguished by that peculiar make; the
non-difference of these two is thus contradicted by immediate
consciousness. At the outset the thing perceived is perceived as
separate from all other things, and this separation is founded on the
fact that the thing is distinguished by a special constitution, let us
say the generic characteristics of a cow, expressed by the term 'such
and such.' In general, wherever we cognise the relation of
distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished thereby, the two
clearly present themselves to our mind as absolutely different.
Somethings--e.g. staffs and bracelets--appear sometimes as having a
separate, independent existence of their own; at other times they
present themselves as distinguishing attributes of other things or
beings (i.e. of the persons carrying staffs or wearing bracelets). Other
entities--e.g. the generic character of cows--have a being only in so
far as they constitute the form of substances, and thus always present
themselves as distinguishing attributes of those substances. In both
cases there is the same relation of distinguishing attribute and thing
distinguished thereby, and these two are apprehended as absolutely
different. The difference between the two classes of entities is only
that staffs, bracelets, and similar things are capable of being
apprehended in separation from other things, while the generic
characteristics of a species are absolutely incapable thereof. The
assertion, therefore, that the difference of things is refuted by
immediate consciousness, is based on the plain denial of a certain form
of consciousness, the one namely--admitted by every one--which is
expressed in the judgment 'This thing is such and such.'--This same
point is clearly expounded by the Sūtrakāra in II, 2, 33.




Inference also teaches difference.

Perception thus having for its object only what is marked by difference,
inference also is in the same case; for its object is only what is
distinguished by connexion with things known through perception and
other means of knowledge. And thus, even in the case of disagreement as
to the number of the different instruments of knowledge, a thing devoid
of difference could not be established by any of them since the
instruments of knowledge acknowledged by all have only one and the same
object, viz. what is marked by difference. And a person who maintains
the existence of a thing devoid of difference on the ground of
differences affecting that very thing simply contradicts himself without
knowing what he does; he is in fact no better than a man who asserts
that his own mother never had any children.




Perception does not reveal mere being.

In reply to the assertion that perception causes the apprehension of
pure Being only, and therefore cannot have difference for its object;
and that 'difference' cannot be defined because it does not admit of
being set forth in definite alternatives; we point out that these
charges are completely refuted by the fact that the only objects of
perception are things distinguished by generic character and so on, and
that generic character and so on--as being relative things--give at once
rise to the judgment as to the distinction between themselves and the
things in which they inhere. You yourself admit that in the case of
knowledge and in that of colour and other qualities this relation holds
good, viz. that something which gives rise to a judgment about another
thing at the same time gives rise to a judgment about itself; the same
may therefore be admitted with regard to difference [FOOTNOTE 44:1].

For this reason the charge of a regressus in infinitum and a logical
seesaw (see above, p. 32) cannot be upheld. For even if perceptive
cognition takes place within one moment, we apprehend within that moment
the generic character which constitutes on the one hand the difference
of the thing from others, and on the other hand the peculiar character
of the thing itself; and thus there remains nothing to be apprehended in
a second moment.

Moreover, if perception made us apprehend only pure Being judgments
clearly referring to different objects--such as 'Here is a jar,' 'There
is a piece of cloth'--would be devoid of all meaning. And if through
perception we did not apprehend difference--as marked by generic
character, &c., constituting the structure or make of a thing, why
should a man searching for a horse not be satisfied with finding a
buffalo? And if mere Being only were the object of all our cognitions,
why should we not remember, in the case of each particular cognition,
all the words which are connected with all our cognitions? And further,
if the cognition of a horse and that of an elephant had one object only,
the later cognition would cause us to apprehend only what was
apprehended before, and there being thus no difference (of object of
cognition) there would be nothing to distinguish the later state of
cognition from remembrance. If on the other hand a difference is
admitted for each state of consciousness, we admit thereby that
perception has for its objects things affected with difference.

If all acts of cognition had one and the same object only, everything
would be apprehended by one act of cognition; and from this it would
follow that there are no persons either deaf or blind!

Nor does, as a matter of fact, the eye apprehend mere Being only; for
what it does apprehend is colour and the coloured thing, and those other
qualities (viz. extension, &c.), which inhere in the thing together with
colour. Nor does feeling do so; for it has for its objects things
palpable. Nor have the ear and the other senses mere Being for their
object; but they relate to what is distinguished by a special sound or
taste or smell. Hence there is not any source of knowledge causing us to
apprehend mere Being. If moreover the senses had for their object mere
Being free from all difference, it would follow that Scripture which has
the same object would (not be originative of knowledge but) perform the
function of a mere anuvāda, i.e. it would merely make statements about
something, the knowledge of which is already established by some other
means. And further, according to your own doctrine, mere Being, i.e.
Brahman, would hold the position of an object with regard to the
instruments of knowledge; and thus there would cling to it all the
imperfections indicated by yourself--non-intelligent nature,
perishableness and so on.--From all this we conclude that perception has
for its object only what is distinguished by difference manifesting
itself in generic character and so on, which constitute the make or
structure of a thing. (That the generic character of a thing is nothing
else but its particular structure follows) from the fact that we do not
perceive anything, different from structure, which could be claimed as
constituting the object of the cognition that several individuals
possess one and the same general form. And as our theory sufficiently
accounts for the ordinary notions as to generic character, and as
moreover even those who hold generic character to be something different
from structure admit that there is such a thing as (common) structure,
we adhere to the conclusion that generic character is nothing but
structure. By 'structure' we understand special or distinctive form; and
we acknowledge different forms of that kind according to the different
classes of things. And as the current judgments as to things being
different from one another can be explained on the basis of the
apprehension of generic character, and as no additional entity is
observed to exist, and as even those who maintain the existence of such
an additional thing admit the existence of generic character, we further
conclude that difference (bheda) is nothing but generic character (jāti).--
But if this were so, the judgment as to difference would immediately
follow from the judgment as to generic character, as soon as the latter
is apprehended! Quite true, we reply. As a matter of fact the judgment
of difference is immediately formulated on the basis of the judgment as
to generic character. For 'the generic character' of a cow, e.g., means
just the exclusion of everything else: as soon as that character is
apprehended all thought and speech referring to other creatures
belonging to the same wider genus (which includes buffaloes and so on
also) come to an end. It is through the apprehension of difference only
that the idea of non-difference comes to an end.

[FOOTNOTE 44:1. Colour reveals itself as well as the thing that has
colour; knowledge reveals itself as well as the object known; so
difference manifests itself as well as the things that differ.]




Plurality is not unreal.

Next as to the assertion that all difference presented in our
cognition--as of jars, pieces of cloth and the like--is unreal because
such difference does not persist. This view, we maintain, is altogether
erroneous, springs in fact from the neglect of distinguishing between
persistence and non-persistence on the one hand, and the relation
between what sublates and what is sublated on the other hand. Where two
cognitions are mutually contradictory, there the latter relation holds
good, and there is non-persistence of what is sublated. But jars, pieces
of cloth and the like, do not contradict one another, since they are
separate in place and time. If on the other hand the non-existence of a
thing is cognised at the same time and the same place where and when its
existence is cognised, we have a mutual contradiction of two cognitions,
and then the stronger one sublates the other cognition which thus comes
to an end. But when of a thing that is perceived in connexion with some
place and time, the non-existence is perceived in connexion with some
other place and time, there arises no contradiction; how then should the
one cognition sublate the other? or how can it be said that of a thing
absent at one time and place there is absence at other times and places
also? In the case of the snake-rope, there arises a cognition of
non-existence in connexion with the given place and time; hence there is
contradiction, one judgment sublates the other and the sublated
cognition comes to an end. But the circumstance of something which is
seen at one time and in one place not persisting at another time and in
another place is not observed to be invariably accompanied by falsehood,
and hence mere non-persistence of this kind does not constitute a reason
for unreality. To say, on the other hand, that what is is real because
it persists, is to prove what is proved already, and requires no further
proof.




Being and consciousness are not one.

Hence mere Being does not alone constitute reality. And as the
distinction between consciousness and its objects--which rests just on
this relation of object and that for which the object is--is proved by
perception, the assertion that only consciousness has real existence is
also disposed of.




The true meaning of Svayamprakāsatva.

We next take up the point as to the self-luminousness of consciousness
(above, p. 33). The contention that consciousness is not an object holds
good for the knowing Self at the time when it illumines (i.e.
constitutes as its objects) other things; but there is no absolute rule
as to all consciousness never being anything but self-luminous. For
common observation shows that the consciousness of one person may become
the object of the cognition of another, viz. of an inference founded on
the person's friendly or unfriendly appearance and the like, and again
that a person's own past states of consciousness become the object of
his own cognition--as appears from judgments such as 'At one time I knew.'
It cannot therefore be said 'If it is consciousness it is self-proved'
(above p. 33), nor that consciousness if becoming an object of
consciousness would no longer be consciousness; for from this it would
follow that one's own past states, and the conscious states of others--
because being objects of consciousness--are not themselves consciousness.
Moreover, unless it were admitted that there is inferential knowledge of
the thoughts of others, there would be no apprehension of the connexion
of words and meaning, and this would imply the absolute termination of
all human intercourse depending on speech. Nor also would it be possible
for pupils to attach themselves to a teacher of sacred lore, for the
reason that they had become aware of his wisdom and learning. The
general proposition that consciousness does not admit of being an object
is in fact quite untenable. The essential 'nature of consciousness or
knowledge--consists therein that it shines forth, or manifests itself,
through its own being to its own substrate at the present moment; or (to
give another definition) that it is instrumental in proving its own
object by its own being [FOOTNOTE 48:1].

Now these two characteristics are established by a person's own state of
consciousness and do not vanish when that consciousness becomes the
object of another state of consciousness; consciousness remains also in
the latter case what it is. Jars and similar things, on the other hand,
do not possess consciousness, not because they are objects of
consciousness but because they lack the two characteristics stated
above. If we made the presence of consciousness dependent on the absence
of its being an object of consciousness, we should arrive at the
conclusion that consciousness is not consciousness; for there are
things--e.g. sky-flowers--which are not objects of consciousness and at
the same time are not consciousness. You will perhaps reply to this that
a sky-flower's not being consciousness is due not to its not being an
object of consciousness, but to its non-existence!--Well then, we
rejoin, let us say analogously that the reason of jars and the like not
being contradictory to Nescience (i.e. of their being jada), is their
not being of the nature of consciousness, and let us not have recourse
to their being objects of consciousness!--But if consciousness is an
object of consciousness, we conclude that it also is non-contradictory
of Nescience, like a jar!--At this conclusion, we rejoin, you may arrive
even on the opposite assumption, reasoning as follows: 'Consciousness is
non-contradictory of Nescience, because it is not an object of
consciousness, like a sky-flower! All which shows that to maintain as a
general principle that something which is an object of consciousness
cannot itself be consciousness is simply ridiculous.'

[FOOTNOTE 48:1. The comment of the Sru. Pra. on the above definitions
runs, with a few additional explanations, as follows: The term
'anubhūti' here denotes knowledge in general, not only such knowledge as
is not remembrance (which limited meaning the term has sometimes). With
reference to the 'shining forth' it might be said that in this way jars
also and similar things know or are conscious because they also shine
forth' (viz. in so far as they are known); to exclude jars and the like
the text therefore adds 'to its own substrate' (the jar 'shines forth,'
not to itself, but to the knowing person). There are other attributes
of the Self, such as atomic extension, eternity, and so on, which are
revealed (not through themselves) but through an act of knowledge
different from them; to exclude those the text adds 'through its own
being.' In order to exclude past states of consciousness or acts of
knowledge, the text adds 'at the present moment.' A past state of
consciousness is indeed not revealed without another act of knowledge
(representing it), and would thus by itself be excluded; but the text
adds this specification (viz. 'at the present moment') on purpose, in
order to intimate that a past state of consciousness can be represented
by another state--a point denied by the opponent. 'At the present
moment' means 'the connexion with the object of knowledge belonging to
the present time.' Without the addition of 'to its own substrate' the
definition might imply that a state of consciousness is manifest to
another person also; to exclude this the clause is added. This first
definition might be objected to as acceptable only to those who maintain
the svayamprakāsatva-theory (which need not be discussed here); hence a
second definition is given. The two clauses 'to its own substrate' and
'at the present moment' have to be supplied in this second definition
also. 'Instrumental in bringing about' would apply to staffs, wheels,
and such like implements also; hence the text adds 'its own object.'
(Staffs, wheels, &c. have no 'objects.') Knowledge depending on sight
does not bring about an object depending on hearing; to exclude this
notion of universal instrumentality the text specifies the object by the
words 'its own.' The clause 'through its own being' excludes the sense
organs, which reveal objects not by their own being, but in so far as
they give rise to knowledge. The two clauses 'at the present moment' and
'to its own substrate' have the same office in the second definition as
in the first.]




Consciousness is not eternal.

It was further maintained by the pūrvapakshin that as consciousness is
self-established it has no antecedent non-existence and so on, and that
this disproves its having an origin. But this is an attempt to prove
something not proved by something else that is equally unproved;
comparable to a man blind from birth undertaking to guide another blind
man! You have no right to maintain the non-existence of the antecedent
non-existence of consciousness on the ground that there is nothing to
make us apprehend that non-existence; for there is something to make us
apprehend it, viz. consciousness itself!--But how can consciousness at
the time when it is, make us apprehend its own previous non-existence
which is contradictorily opposed to it?--Consciousness, we rejoin, does
not necessarily constitute as its objects only what occupies the same
time with itself; were it so it would follow that neither the past nor
the future can be the object of consciousness. Or do you mean that there
is an absolute rule that the Antecedent non-existence of consciousness,
if proved, must be contemporaneous with consciousness? Have you then, we
ask, ever observed this so as to be able to assert an absolute rule? And
if it were observed, that would prove the existence of previous
non-existence, not its negation!--The fact, however, is that no person
in his senses will maintain the contemporaneous existence of
consciousness and its own antecedent non-existence. In the case of
perceptive knowledge originating from sensation, there is indeed this
limitation, that it causes the apprehension of such things only as are
actually present at the same time. But this limitation does not extend
to cognitions of all kinds, nor to all instruments of knowledge; for we
observe that remembrance, inference, and the magical perception of Yogis
apprehend such things also as are not present at the time of
apprehension. On this very point there rests the relation connecting the
means of knowledge with their objects, viz. that the former are not
without the latter. This does not mean that the instrument of knowledge
is connected with its object in that way that it is not without
something that is present at the time of cognition; but rather that the
instrument of knowledge is opposed to the falsehood of that special form
in which the object presents itself as connected with some place and
time.--This disposes also of the contention that remembrance has no
external object; for it is observed that remembrance is related to such
things also as have perished.--Possibly you will now argue as follows.
The antecedent non-existence of consciousness cannot be ascertained by
perception, for it is not something present at the time of perception.
It further cannot be ascertained by the other means of knowledge, since
there is no characteristic mark (linga) on which an inference could be
based: for we do not observe any characteristic mark invariably
accompanied by the antecedent non-existence of consciousness. Nor do we
meet with any scriptural text referring to this antecedent
non-existence. Hence, in the absence of any valid instrument of
knowledge, the antecedent non-existence of consciousness cannot be
established at all.--If, we reply, you thus, altogether setting aside
the force of self-provedness (on which you had relied hitherto), take
your stand on the absence of valid means of knowledge, we again must
request you to give in; for there is a valid means of knowledge whereby
to prove the antecedent non-existence of consciousness, viz. valid
non-perception (anupalabdhi).

Moreover, we observe that perceptional knowledge proves its object, be
it a jar or something else, to exist only as long as it exists itself,
not at all times; we do not, through it, apprehend the antecedent or
subsequent existence of the jar. Now this absence of apprehension is due
to the fact that consciousness itself is limited in time. If that
consciousness which has a jar for its object were itself apprehended as
non-limited in time, the object also--the jar--would be apprehended
under the same form, i.e. it would be eternal. And if self-established
consciousness were eternal, it would be immediately cognised as eternal;
but this is not the case. Analogously, if inferential consciousness and
other forms of consciousness were apprehended as non-limited in time,
they would all of them reveal their objects also as non-limited, and
these objects would thus be eternal; for the objects are conform in
nature to their respective forms of consciousness.




There is no consciousness without object.

Nor is there any consciousness devoid of objects; for nothing of this
kind is ever known. Moreover, the self-luminousness of consciousness has,
by our opponent himself, been proved on the ground that its essential
nature consists in illumining (revealing) objects; the self-luminousness
of consciousness not admitting of proof apart from its essential nature
which consists in the lighting up of objects. And as moreover, according
to our opponent, consciousness cannot be the object of another
consciousness, it would follow that (having neither an object nor itself
being an object) it is something altogether unreal, imaginary.

Nor are you justified in maintaining that in deep sleep, swoon,
senselessness and similar states, pure consciousness, devoid of any
object, manifests itself. This view is negatived by 'valid
non-perception' (see above, p. 52). If consciousness were present in
those states also, there would be remembrance of it at the time of
waking from sleep or recovery from swoon; but as a matter of fact there
is no such remembrance.--But it is not an absolute rule that something
of which we were conscious must be remembered; how then can the absence
of remembrance prove the absence of previous consciousness?--Unless, we
reply, there be some cause of overpowering strength which quite
obliterates all impressions--as e.g. the dissolution of the body--the
absence of remembrance does necessarily prove the absence of previous
consciousness. And, moreover, in the present case the absence of
consciousness does not only follow from absence of remembrance; it is
also proved by the thought presenting itself to the person risen from
sleep, 'For so long a time I was not conscious of anything.'--Nor may it
be said that even if there was consciousness, absence of remembrance
would necessarily follow from the absence (during deep sleep) of the
distinction of objects, and from the extinction of the consciousness of
the 'I'; for the non-consciousness of some one thing, and the absence of
some one thing cannot be the cause of the non-remembrance of some other
thing, of which there had been consciousness. And that in the states in
question the consciousness of the 'I' does persist, will moreover be
shown further on.

But, our opponent urges, have you not said yourself that even in deep
sleep and similar states there is consciousness marked by difference?--
True, we have said so. But that consciousness is consciousness of the
Self, and that this is affected by difference will be proved further on.
At present we are only interested in denying the existence of your pure
consciousness, devoid of all objects and without a substrate. Nor can we
admit that your pure consciousness could constitute what we call the
consciousness of the Self; for we shall prove that the latter has a
substrate.

It thus cannot be maintained that the antecedent non-existence of
consciousness does not admit of being proved, because consciousness
itself does not prove it. And as we have shown that consciousness itself
may be an object of consciousness, we have thereby disproved the alleged
impossibility of antecedent non-existence being proved by other means.
Herewith falls the assertion that the non-origination of consciousness
can be proved.




Consciousness is capable of change.

Against the assertion that the alleged non-origination of consciousness
at the same time proves that consciousness is not capable of any other
changes (p. 36), we remark that the general proposition on which this
conclusion rests is too wide: it would extend to antecedent
non-existence itself, of which it is evident that it comes to an end,
although it does not originate. In qualifying the changes as changes of
'Being,' you manifest great logical acumen indeed! For according to your
own view Nescience also (which is not 'Being') does not originate, is
the substrate of manifold changes, and comes to an end through the rise
of knowledge! Perhaps you will say that the changes of Nescience are all
unreal. But, do you then, we ask in reply, admit that any change is
real? You do not; and yet it is only this admission which would give a
sense to the distinction expressed by the word 'Being' [FOOTNOTE 54:1].

Nor is it true that consciousness does not admit of any division within
itself, because it has no beginning (p. 36). For the non-originated Self
is divided from the body, the senses, &c., and Nescience also, which is
avowedly without a beginning, must needs be admitted to be divided from
the Self. And if you say that the latter division is unreal, we ask
whether you have ever observed a real division invariably connected with
origination! Moreover, if the distinction of Nescience from the Self is
not real, it follows that Nescience and the Self are essentially one.
You further have yourself proved the difference of views by means of the
difference of the objects of knowledge as established by non-refuted
knowledge; an analogous case being furnished by the difference of acts
of cleaving, which results from the difference of objects to be cleft.
And if you assert that of this knowing--which is essentially knowing
only--nothing that is an object of knowledge can be an attribute, and
that these objects--just because they are objects of knowledge--cannot
be attributes of knowing; we point out that both these remarks would
apply also to eternity, self-luminousness, and the other attributes of
'knowing', which are acknowledged by yourself, and established by valid
means of proof. Nor may you urge against this that all these alleged
attributes are in reality mere 'consciousness' or 'knowing'; for they
are essentially distinct. By 'being conscious' or 'knowing', we
understand the illumining or manifesting of some object to its own
substrate (i.e. the substrate of knowledge), by its own existence (i.e.
the existence of knowledge) merely; by self-luminousness (or
'self-illuminatedness') we understand the shining forth or being
manifest by its own existence merely to its own substrate; the terms
'shining forth', 'illumining', 'being manifest' in both these
definitions meaning the capability of becoming an object of thought and
speech which is common to all things, whether intelligent or
non-intelligent. Eternity again means 'being present in all time';
oneness means 'being defined by the number one'. Even if you say that
these attributes are only negative ones, i.e. equal to the absence of
non-intelligence and so on, you still cannot avoid the admission that
they are attributes of consciousness. If, on the other hand, being of a
nature opposite to non-intelligence and so on, be not admitted as
attributes of consciousness--whether of a positive or a negative
kind--in addition to its essential nature; it is an altogether unmeaning
proceeding to deny to it such qualities, as non-intelligence and the
like.

We moreover must admit the following alternative: consciousness is
either proved (established) or not. If it is proved it follows that it
possesses attributes; if it is not, it is something absolutely nugatory,
like a sky-flower, and similar purely imaginary things.

[FOOTNOTE 54:1. The Sānkara is not entitled to refer to a distinction of
real and unreal division, because according to his theory all
distinction is unreal.]




Consciousness is the attribute of a permanent Conscious self.

Let it then be said that consciousness is proof (siddhih) itself. Proof
of what, we ask in reply, and to whom? If no definite answer can be
given to these two questions, consciousness cannot be defined as
'proof'; for 'proof' is a relative notion, like 'son.' You will perhaps
reply 'Proof to the Self'; and if we go on asking 'But what is that
Self'? you will say, 'Just consciousness as already said by us before.'
True, we reply, you said so; but it certainly was not well said. For if
it is the nature of consciousness to be 'proof' ('light,'
'enlightenment') on the part of a person with regard to something, how
can this consciousness which is thus connected with the person and the
thing be itself conscious of itself? To explain: the essential character
of consciousness or knowledge is that by its very existence it renders
things capable of becoming objects, to its own substrate, of thought and
speech. This consciousness (anubhūti), which is also termed jńāna,
avagati, samvid, is a particular attribute belonging to a conscious Self
and related to an object: as such it is known to every one on the
testimony of his own Self--as appears from ordinary judgments such as 'I
know the jar,' 'I understand this matter,' 'I am conscious of (the
presence of) this piece of cloth.' That such is the essential nature of
consciousness you yourself admit; for you have proved thereby its
self-luminousness. Of this consciousness which thus clearly presents
itself as the attribute of an agent and as related to an object, it
would be difficult indeed to prove that at the same time it is itself
the agent; as difficult as it would be to prove that the object of
action is the agent.

For we clearly see that this agent (the subject of consciousness) is
permanent (constant), while its attribute, i. e. consciousness, not
differing herein from joy, grief, and the like, rises, persists for some
time, and then comes to an end. The permanency of the conscious subject
is proved by the fact of recognition, 'This very same thing was formerly
apprehended by me.' The non-permanency of consciousness, on the other
hand, is proved by thought expressing itself in the following forms, 'I
know at present,' 'I knew at a time,' 'I, the knowing subject, no longer
have knowledge of this thing.' How then should consciousness and (the
conscious subject) be one? If consciousness which changes every moment
were admitted to constitute the conscious subject, it would be
impossible for us to recognise the thing seen to-day as the one we saw
yesterday; for what has been perceived by one cannot be recognised by
another. And even if consciousness were identified with the conscious
subject and acknowledged as permanent, this would no better account for
the fact of recognition. For recognition implies a conscious subject
persisting from the earlier to the later moment, and not merely
consciousness. Its expression is 'I myself perceived this thing on a
former occasion.' According to your view the quality of being a
conscious agent cannot at all belong to consciousness; for consciousness,
you say, is just consciousness and nothing more. And that there exists a
pure consciousness devoid of substrate and objects alike, we have
already refuted on the ground that of a thing of this kind we have
absolutely no knowledge. And that the consciousness admitted by both of
us should be the Self is refuted by immediate consciousness itself. And
we have also refuted the fallacious arguments brought forward to prove
that mere consciousness is the only reality.--But, another objection is
raised, should the relation of the Self and the 'I' not rather be
conceived as follows:--In self-consciousness which expresses itself in
the judgment 'I know,' that intelligent something which constitutes the
absolutely non-objective element, and is pure homogeneous light, is the
Self; the objective element (yushmad-artha) on the other hand, which is
established through its being illumined (revealed) by the Self is the
_I_--in 'I know'--and this is something different from pure
intelligence, something objective or external?

By no means, we reply; for this view contradicts the relation of
attribute and substrate of attribute of which we are directly conscious,
as implied in the thought 'I know.'

Consider also what follows.--'If the _I_ were not the Self, the
inwardness of the Self would not exist; for it is just the consciousness
of the _I_ which separates the inward from the outward.

'"May I, freeing myself from all pain, enter on free possession of
endless delight?" This is the thought which prompts the man desirous of
release to apply himself to the study of the sacred texts. Were it a
settled matter that release consists in the annihilation of the I, the
same man would move away as soon as release were only hinted at. "When I
myself have perished, there still persists some consciousness different
from me;" to bring this about nobody truly will exert himself.

'Moreover the very existence of consciousness, its being a consciousness
at all, and its being self-luminous, depend on its connexion with a Self;
when that connexion is dissolved, consciousness itself cannot be
established, not any more than the act of cutting can take place when
there is no person to cut and nothing to be cut. Hence it is certain
that the I, i.e. the knowing subject, is the inward Self.'

This scripture confirms when saying 'By what should he know the knower?'
(Bri. Up. II, 4, 15); and Smriti also, 'Him who knows this they call the
knower of the body' (Bha. Gī. XIII, 1). And the Sūtrakāra also, in the
section beginning with 'Not the Self on account of scriptural statement'
(II, 3, 17), will say 'For this very reason (it is) a knower' (II, 3,
18); and from this it follows that the Self is not mere consciousness.

What is established by consciousness of the 'I' is the I itself, while
the not-I is given in the consciousness of the not-I; hence to say that
the knowing subject, which is established by the state of consciousness,
'I know,' is the not-I, is no better than to maintain that one's own
mother is a barren woman. Nor can it be said that this 'I,' the knowing
subject, is dependent on its light for something else. It rather is
self-luminous; for to be self-luminous means to have consciousness for
one's essential nature. And that which has light for its essential
nature does not depend for its light on something else. The case is
analogous to that of the flame of a lamp or candle. From the
circumstance that the lamp illumines with its light other things, it
does not follow either that it is not luminous, or that its luminousness
depends on something else; the fact rather is that the lamp being of
luminous nature shines itself and illumines with its light other things
also. To explain.--The one substance tejas, i.e. fire or heat, subsists
in a double form, viz. as light (prabhā), and as luminous matter.
Although light is a quality of luminous substantial things, it is in
itself nothing but the substance tejas, not a mere quality like e.g.
whiteness; for it exists also apart from its substrates, and possesses
colour (which is a quality). Having thus attributes different from those
of qualities such as whiteness and so on, and possessing illumining
power, it is the substance tejas, not anything else (e.g. a quality).
Illumining power belongs to it, because it lights up itself and other
things. At the same time it is practically treated as a quality because
it always has the substance tejas for its substrate, and depends on it.
This must not be objected to on the ground that what is called light is
really nothing but dissolving particles of matter which proceed from the
substance tejas; for if this were so, shining gems and the sun would in
the end consume themselves completely. Moreover, if the flame of a lamp
consisted of dissolving particles of matter, it would never be
apprehended as a whole; for no reason can be stated why those particles
should regularly rise in an agglomerated form to the height of four
fingers breadth, and after that simultaneously disperse themselves
uniformly in all directions--upwards, sideways, and downwards. The fact
is that the flame of the lamp together with its light is produced anew
every moment and again vanishes every moment; as we may infer from the
successive combination of sufficient causes (viz. particles of oil and
wick) and from its coming to an end when those causes are completely
consumed.

Analogously to the lamp, the Self is essentially intelligent (kid-rūpa),
and has intelligence (kaitanya) for its quality. And to be essentially
intelligent means to be self-luminous. There are many scriptural texts
declaring this, compare e.g. 'As a mass of salt has neither inside nor
outside but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed that Self has
neither inside nor outside but is altogether a mass of knowledge' (Bri.
Up. IV, 5, 13); 'There that person becomes self-luminous, there is no
destruction of the knowing of the knower' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 14; 30); 'He
who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 4); 'Who
is that Self? That one who is made of knowledge, among the prānas,
within the heart, the light, the person' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7); 'For it is
he who sees, hears, smells, tastes, thinks, considers, acts, the person
whose Self is knowledge' (Pr. Up. IV, 9); 'Whereby should one know the
knower' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15). 'This person knows,' 'The seer does not
see death nor illness nor pain' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2); 'That highest
person not remembering this body into which he was born' (Ch. Up. VIII,
12, 3); 'Thus these sixteen parts of the spectator that go towards the
person; when they have readied the person, sink into him' (Pr. Up. VI,
5); 'From this consisting of mind, there is different an interior Self
consisting of knowledge' (Taitt. Up. II, 4). And the Sūtrakāra also will
refer to the Self as a 'knower' in II, 3, 18. All which shows that the
self-luminous Self is a knower, i.e. a knowing subject, and not pure
light (non-personal intelligence). In general we may say that where
there is light it must belong to something, as shown by the light of a
lamp. The Self thus cannot be mere consciousness. The grammarians
moreover tell us that words such as 'consciousness,' 'knowledge,' &c.,
are relative; neither ordinary nor Vedic language uses expressions such
as 'he knows' without reference to an object known and an agent who
knows.

With reference to the assertion that consciousness constitutes the Self,
because it (consciousness) is not non-intelligent (jada), we ask what
you understand by this absence of non-intelligence.' If you reply
'luminousness due to the being of the thing itself (i.e. of the thing
which is ajada)'; we point out that this definition would wrongly
include lamps also, and similar things; and it would moreover give rise
to a contradiction, since you do not admit light as an attribute,
different from consciousness itself. Nor can we allow you to define
ajadatva as 'being of that nature that light is always present, without
any exception,' for this definition would extend also to pleasure, pain,
and similar states. Should you maintain that pleasure and so on,
although being throughout of the nature of light, are non-intelligent
for the reason that, like jars, &c., they shine forth (appear) to
something else and hence belong to the sphere of the not-Self; we ask in
reply: Do you mean then to say that knowledge appears to itself?
Knowledge no less than pleasure appears to some one else, viz. the 'I':
there is, in that respect, no difference between the judgment 'I know,'
and the judgment 'I am pleased.' Non-intelligence in the sense of
appearingness-to-itself is thus not proved for consciousness; and hence
it follows that what constitutes the Self is the non-jada 'I' which is
proved to itself by its very Being. That knowledge is of the nature of
light depends altogether on its connection with the knowing 'I': it is
due to the latter, that knowledge, like pleasure, manifests itself to
that conscious person who is its substrate, and not to anybody else. The
Self is thus not mere knowledge, but is the knowing 'I.'




The view that the conscious subject is something unreal, due to the
ahamkāra, cannot be maintained.

We turn to a further point. You maintain that consciousness which is in
reality devoid alike of objects and substrate presents itself, owing to
error, in the form of a knowing subject, just as mother o' pearl appears
as silver; (consciousness itself being viewed as a real substrate of an
erroneous imputation), because an erroneous imputation cannot take place
apart from a substrate. But this theory is indefensible. If things were
as you describe them, the conscious 'I' would be cognised as co-ordinate
with the state of consciousness 'I am consciousness,' just as the
shining thing presenting itself to our eyes is judged to be silver. But
the fact is that the state of consciousness presents itself as something
apart, constituting a distinguishing attribute of the I, just as the
stick is an attribute of Devadatta who carries it. The judgment 'I am
conscious' reveals an 'I' distinguished by consciousness; and to declare
that it refers only to a state of consciousness--which is a mere
attribute--is no better than to say that the judgment 'Devadatta carries
a stick' is about the stick only. Nor are you right in saying that the
idea of the Self being a knowing agent, presents itself to the mind of
him only who erroneously identifies the Self and the body, an error
expressing itself in judgments such as 'I am stout,' and is on that
account false; for from this it would follow that the consciousness
which is erroneously imagined as a Self is also false; for it presents
itself to the mind of the same person. You will perhaps rejoin that
consciousness is not false because it (alone) is not sublatcd by that
cognition which sublates everything else. Well, we reply, then the
knowership of the Self also is not false; for that also is not sublatcd.
You further maintain that the character of being a knower, i.e. the
agent in the action of knowing, does not become the non-changing Self;
that being a knower is something implying change, of a non-intelligent
kind (jada), and residing in the ahamkāra which is the abode of change
and a mere effect of the Unevolved (the Prakriti); that being an agent
and so on is like colour and other qualities, an attribute of what is
objective; and that if we admit the Self to be an agent and the object
of the notion of the 'I,' it also follows that the Self is, like the
body, not a real Self but something external and non-intelligent. But
all this is unfounded, since the internal organ is, like the body,
non-intelligent, an effect of Prakriti, an object of knowledge,
something outward and for the sake of others merely; while being a
knowing subject constitutes the special essential nature of intelligent
beings. To explain. Just as the body, through its objectiveness,
outwardness, and similar causes, is distinguished from what possesses
the opposite attributes of subjectiveness, inwardness, and so on; for
the same reason the ahamkāra also--which is of the same substantial
nature as the body--is similarly distinguished. Hence the ahamkāra is
no more a knower than it is something subjective; otherwise there would
be an evident contradiction. As knowing cannot be attributed to the
ahamkāra, which is an object of knowledge, so knowership also cannot be
ascribed to it; for of that also it is the object. Nor can it be
maintained that to be a knower is something essentially changing. For to
be a knower is to be the substrate of the quality of knowledge, and as
the knowing Self is eternal, knowledge which is an essential quality of
the Self is also eternal. That the Self is eternal will be declared in
the Sūtra, II, 3, 17; and in II, 3, 18 the term 'jńa' (knower) will show
that it is an essential quality of the Self to be the abode of
knowledge. That a Self whose essential nature is knowledge should be the
substrate of the (quality of) knowledge--just as gems and the like are
the substrate of light--gives rise to no contradiction whatever.

Knowledge (the quality) which is in itself unlimited, is capable of
contraction and expansion, as we shall show later on. In the so-called
kshetrajńa--condition of the Self, knowledge is, owing to the influence
of work (karman), of a contracted nature, as it more or less adapts
itself to work of different kinds, and is variously determined by the
different senses. With reference to this various flow of knowledge as
due to the senses, it is spoken of as rising and setting, and the Self
possesses the quality of an agent. As this quality is not, however,
essential, but originated by action, the Self is essentially unchanging.
This changeful quality of being a knower can belong only to the Self
whose essential nature is knowledge; not possibly to the non-intelligent
ahamkāra. But, you will perhaps say, the ahamkāra, although of non-
intelligent nature, may become a knower in so far as by approximation to
intelligence it becomes a reflection of the latter. How, we ask in
return, is this becoming a reflection of intelligence imagined to take
place? Does consciousness become a reflection of the ahamkāra, or does
the ahamkāra become a reflection of consciousness? The former
alternative is inadmissible, since you will not allow to consciousness
the quality of being a knower; and so is the latter since, as explained
above, the non-intelligent ahamkāra can never become a knower. Moreover,
neither consciousness nor the ahamkāra are objects of visual perception.
Only things seen by the eye have reflections.--Let it then be said that
as an iron ball is heated by contact with fire, so the consciousness of
being a knower is imparted to the ahamkāra through its contact with
Intelligence.--This view too is inadmissible; for as you do not allow
real knowership to Intelligence, knowership or the consciousness of
knowership cannot be imparted to the ahamkāra by contact with
Intelligence; and much less even can knowership or the consciousness of
it be imparted to Intelligence by contact with the essentially non-
intelligent ahamkāra. Nor can we accept what you say about
'manifestation.' Neither the ahamkāra, you say, nor Intelligence is
really a knowing subject, but the ahamkāra manifests consciousness
abiding within itself (within the ahamkāra), as the mirror manifests the
image abiding within it. But the essentially non-intelligent ahamkāra
evidently cannot 'manifest' the self-luminous Self. As has been said
'That the non-intelligent ahamkāra should manifest the self-luminous
Self, has no more sense than to say that a spent coal manifests the Sun.'
The truth is that all things depend for their proof on self-luminous
consciousness; and now you maintain that one of these things, viz. the
non-intelligent ahamkāra--which itself depends for its light on
consciousness--manifests consciousness, whose essential light never
rises or sets, and which is the cause that proves everything! Whoever
knows the nature of the Self will justly deride such a view! The
relation of 'manifestation' cannot hold good between consciousness and
the ahamkāra for the further reason also that there is a contradiction
in nature between the two, and because it would imply consciousness not
to be consciousness. As has been said, 'One cannot manifest the other,
owing to contradictoriness; and if the Self were something to be
manifested, that would imply its being non-intelligent like a jar.' Nor
is the matter improved by your introducing the hand and the sunbeams
(above, p. 38), and to say that as the sunbeams while manifesting the
hand, are at the same time manifested by the hand, so consciousness,
while manifesting the ahamkāra, is at the same time itself manifested by
the latter. The sunbeams are in reality not manifested by the hand at
all. What takes place is that the motion of the sunbeams is reversed
(reflected) by the opposed hand; they thus become more numerous, and
hence are perceived more clearly; but this is due altogether to the
multitude of beams, not to any manifesting power on the part of the hand.

What could, moreover, be the nature of that 'manifestation' of the Self
consisting of Intelligence, which would be effected through the ahamkāra?
It cannot be origination; for you acknowledge that what is self-
established cannot be originated by anything else. Nor can it be
'illumination' (making to shine forth), since consciousness cannot--
according to you--be the object of another consciousness. For the same
reason it cannot be any action assisting the means of being conscious of
consciousness. For such helpful action could be of two kinds only. It
would either be such as to cause the connexion of the object to be known
with the sense-organs; as e.g. any action which, in the case of the
apprehension of a species or of one's own face, causes connexion between
the organ of sight and an individual of the species, or a looking-glass.
Or it would be such as to remove some obstructive impurity in the mind
of the knowing person; of this kind is the action of calmness and self-
restraint with reference to scripture which is the means of apprehending
the highest reality. Moreover, even if it were admitted that
consciousness may be an object of consciousness, it could not be
maintained that the 'I' assists the means whereby that consciousness is
effected. For if it did so, it could only be in the way of removing any
obstacles impeding the origination of such consciousness; analogous to
the way in which a lamp assists the eye by dispelling the darkness which
impedes the origination of the apprehension of colour. But in the case
under discussion we are unable to imagine such obstacles. There is
nothing pertaining to consciousness which obstructs the origination of
the knowledge of consciousness and which could be removed by the
ahamkāra.--There is something, you will perhaps reply, viz. Nescience!
Not so, we reply. That Nescience is removed by the ahamkāra cannot be
admitted; knowledge alone can put an end to Nescience. Nor can
consciousness be the abode of Nescience, because in that case Nescience
would have the same abode and the same object as knowledge.

In pure knowledge where there is no knowing subject and no object of
knowledge--the so-called 'witnessing' principle (sākshin)--Nescience
cannot exist. Jars and similar things cannot be the abode of Nescience
because there is no possibility of their being the abode of knowledge,
and for the same reason pure knowledge also cannot be the abode of
Nescience. And even if consciousness were admitted to be the abode of
Nescience, it could not be the object of knowledge; for consciousness
being viewed as the Self cannot be the object of knowledge, and hence
knowledge cannot terminate the Nescience abiding within consciousness.
For knowledge puts an end to Nescience only with regard to its own
objects, as in the case of the snake-rope. And the consequence of this
would be that the Nescience attached to consciousness could never be
destroyed by any one.--If Nescience, we further remark, is viewed as
that which can be defined neither as Being nor non-Being, we shall show
later on that such Nescience is something quite incomprehensible.--On
the other hand, Nescience, if understood to be the antecedent non-
existence of knowledge, is not opposed in nature to the origination of
knowledge, and hence the dispelling of Nescience cannot be viewed as
promoting the means of the knowledge of the Self.--From all this it
follows that the ahamkāra cannot effect in any way 'manifestation of
consciousness.'

Nor (to finish up this point) can it be said that it is the essential
nature of manifesting agents to manifest things in so far as the latter
have their abode in the former; for such a relation is not observed in
the case of lamps and the like (which manifest what lies outside them).
The essential nature of manifesting agents rather lies therein that they
promote the knowledge of things as they really are, and this is also the
nature of whatever promotes knowledge and the means thereof. Nor is it
even true that the mirror manifests the face. The mirror is only the
cause of a certain irregularity, viz. the reversion of the ocular rays
of light, and to this irregularity there is due the appearance of the
face within the mirror; but the manifesting agent is the light only. And
it is evident that the ahamkāra is not capable of producing an
irregularity (analogous to that produced by the mirror) in consciousness
which is self-luminous.--And--with regard to the second analogous
instance alleged by you--the fact is that the species is known through
the individual because the latter is its substrate (as expressed in the
general principle, 'the species is the form of the individual'), but not
because the individual 'manifests' the species. Thus there is no reason,
either real or springing from some imperfection, why the consciousness
of consciousness should be brought about by its abiding in the ahamkāra,
and the attribute of being the knowing agent or the consciousness of
that cannot therefore belong to the ahamkāra. Hence, what constitutes
the inward Self is not pure consciousness but the 'I' which proves
itself as the knowing subject. In the absence of egoity, 'inwardness'
could not be established for consciousness.




The conscious subject persists in deep sleep.

We now come to the question as to the nature of deep sleep. In deep
sleep the quality of darkness prevails in the mind and there is no
consciousness of outward things, and thus there is no distinct and clear
presentation of the 'I'; but all the same the Self somehow presents
itself up to the time of waking in the one form of the 'I,' and the
latter cannot therefore be said to be absent. Pure consciousness assumed
by you (to manifest itself in deep sleep) is really in no better case;
for a person risen from deep sleep never represents to himself his
state of consciousness during sleep in the form, 'I was pure
consciousness free from all egoity and opposed in nature to everything
else, witnessing Nescience'; what he thinks is only 'I slept well.' From
this form of reflection it appears that even during sleep the Self. i.e.
the 'I,' was a knowing subject and perceptive of pleasure. Nor must you
urge against this that the reflection has the following form: 'As now I
feel pleasure, so I slept then also'; for the reflection is distinctly
_not_ of that kind. [FOOTNOTE 68:1] Nor must you say that owing to the
non-permanency of the 'I' its perception of pleasure during sleep
cannot connect itself with the waking state. For (the 'I' is permanent
as appears from the fact that) the person who has risen from sleep
recalls things of which he was conscious before his sleep, 'I did such
and such a thing,' 'I observed this or that,' 'I said so or so.'--But,
you will perhaps say, he also reflects, 'For such and such a time I was
conscious of nothing!'--'And what does this imply?' we ask.--'It implies
a negation of everything!'--By no means, we rejoin. The words 'I was
conscious' show that the knowing 'I' persisted, and that hence what is
negated is only the objects of knowledge. If the negation implied in 'of
nothing' included everything, it would also negative the pure
consciousness which you hold to persist in deep sleep. In the judgment
'I was conscious of nothing,' the word 'I' clearly refers to the 'I,' i.
e. the knowing Self which persists even during deep sleep, while the
words 'was conscious of nothing' negative all knowledge on the part of
that 'I'; if, now, in the face of this, you undertake to prove by means
of this very judgment that knowledge--which is expressly denied--existed
at the time, and that the persisting knowing Self did not exist, you may
address your proof to the patient gods who give no reply!--But--our
opponent goes on to urge--I form the following judgment also: 'I then
was not conscious of myself,' and from this I understand that the 'I'
did not persist during deep sleep!--You do not know, we rejoin, that
this denial of the persistence of the 'I' flatly contradicts the state
of consciousness expressed in the judgment 'I was not conscious of
myself' and the verbal form of the judgment itself!--But what then is
denied by the words 'of myself?--This, we admit, is a reasonable
question. Let us consider the point. What is negatived in that judgment
is not the knowing 'I' itself, but merely the distinctions of caste,
condition of life, &c. which belong to the 'I' at the time of waking. We
must distinguish the objects of the several parts of the judgment under
discussion. The object of the '(me) myself' is the 'I' distinguished by
class characteristics as it presents itself in the waking state; the
object of the word 'I' (in the judgment) is that 'I' which consists of a
uniform flow of self-consciousness which persists in sleep also, but is
then not quite distinct. The judgment 'I did not know myself' therefore
means that the sleeper was not conscious of the place where he slept, of
his special characteristics, and so on.--It is, moreover, your own view
that in deep sleep the Self occupies the position of a witnessing
principle with regard to Nescience. But by a witness (sākshin) we
understand some one who knows about something by personal observation
(sākshāt); a person who does not know cannot be a witness. Accordingly,
in scripture as well as in ordinary language a knowing subject only, not
mere knowledge, is spoken of as a witness; and with this the Reverend
Pānini also agrees when teaching that the word 'sākshin' means one who
knows in person (Pā. Sū. V, 2, 91). Now this witness is nothing else but
the 'I' which is apprehended in the judgment 'I know'; and how then
should this 'I' not be apprehended in the state of sleep? That which
itself appears to the Self appears as the 'I,' and it thus follows that
also in deep sleep and similar states the Self which then shines forth
appears as the 'I.'

[FOOTNOTE 68:1. I. e. the reflection as to the perception of pleasure
refers to the past state of sleep only, not to the present moment of
reflection.]




The conscious subject persists in the state of release.

To maintain that the consciousness of the 'I' does not persist in the
state of final release is again altogether inappropriate. It in fact
amounts to the doctrine--only expressed in somewhat different words--
that final release is the annihilation of the Self. The 'I' is not a
mere attribute of the Self so that even after its destruction the
essential nature of the Self might persist--as it persists on the
cessation of ignorance; but it constitutes the very nature of the Self.
Such judgments as 'I know', 'Knowledge has arisen in me', show, on the
other hand, that we are conscious of knowledge as a mere attribute of
the Self.--Moreover, a man who suffering pain, mental or of other kind--
whether such pain be real or due to error only--puts himself in relation
to pain--'I am suffering pain'--naturally begins to reflect how he may
once for all free himself from all these manifold afflictions and enjoy
a state of untroubled ease; the desire of final release thus having
arisen in him he at once sets to work to accomplish it. If, on the other
hand, he were to realise that the effect of such activity would be the
loss of personal existence, he surely would turn away as soon as
somebody began to tell him about 'release'. And the result of this would
be that, in the absence of willing and qualified pupils, the whole
scriptural teaching as to final release would lose its authoritative
character.--Nor must you maintain against this that even in the state of
release there persists pure consciousness; for this by no means improves
your case. No sensible person exerts himself under the influence of the
idea that after he himself has perished there will remain some entity
termed 'pure light!'--What constitutes the 'inward' Self thus is the 'I',
the knowing subject.

This 'inward' Self shines forth in the state of final release also as an
'I'; for it appears to itself. The general principle is that whatever
being appears to itself appears as an 'I'; both parties in the present
dispute establish the existence of the transmigrating Self on such
appearance. On the contrary, whatever does not appear as an 'I', does
not appear to itself; as jars and the like. Now the emancipated Self
does thus appear to itself, and therefore it appears as an 'I'. Nor does
this appearance as an 'I' imply in any way that the released Self is
subject to Nescience and implicated in the Samsāra; for this would
contradict the nature of final release, and moreover the consciousness
of the 'I' cannot be the cause of Nescience and so on. Nescience
(ignorance) is either ignorance as to essential nature, or the cognition
of something under an aspect different from the real one (as when a
person suffering from jaundice sees all things yellow); or cognition of
what is altogether opposite in nature (as when mother o' pearl is
mistaken for silver). Now the 'I' constitutes the essential nature of
the Self; how then can the consciousness of the 'I,' i.e. the
consciousness of its own true nature, implicate the released Self in
Nescience, or, in the Samsāra? The fact rather is that such
consciousness destroys Nescience, and so on, because it is essentially
opposed to them. In agreement with this we observe that persons like the
rishi Vāmadeva, in whom the intuition of their identity with Brahman had
totally destroyed all Nescience, enjoyed the consciousness of the
personal 'I'; for scripture says, 'Seeing this the rishi Vāmadeva
understood,_I_ was Manu and the Sun' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). And the
highest Brahman also, which is opposed to all other forms of Nescience
and denoted and conceived as pure Being, is spoken of in an analogous
way; cp. 'Let me make each of these three deities,' &c. (Ch. Up. VI, 3,
3); 'May I be many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'He thought,
shall I send forth worlds?' (Ait. Ār. II, 4, 1, 1); and again, 'Since I
transcend the Destructible, and am higher also than the Indestructible,
therefore I am proclaimed in the world and in the Veda as the highest
Person' (Bha. Gī. XV, 18); 'I am the Self, O Gūdākesa.' (Bha. Gī. X, 20);
'Never was I not' (Bha. Gī. II, 12); 'I am the source and the
destruction of the whole world' (Bha. Gī. VII, 6); 'I am the source of
all; from me proceeds everything' (Bha. Gī. X, 8); 'I am he who raises
them from the ocean of the world of death' (Bha. Gī. XII, 7); 'I am the
giver of seed, the father' (Bha. Gī. XIV, 4); 'I know the things past'
(Bha. Gī. VII, 26).--But if the 'I' (aham) constitutes the essential
nature of the Self, how is it that the Holy One teaches the principle of
egoity (ahamkāra) to belong to the sphere of objects, 'The great
elements, the ahamkāra, the understanding (buddhi), and the Unevolved'
(Bha. Gī. XIII, 5)?--As in all passages, we reply, which give
information about the true nature of the Self it is spoken of as the 'I',
we conclude that the 'I' constitutes the essential nature of the inward
Self. Where, on the other hand, the Holy One declares the ahamkāra--a
special effect of the Unevolved--to be comprised within the sphere of
the Objective, he means that principle which is called ahamkāra, because
it causes the assumption of Egoity on the part of the body which belongs
to the Not-self. Such egoity constitutes the ahamkāra also designated as
pride or arrogance, which causes men to slight persons superior to
themselves, and is referred to by scripture in many places as something
evil. Such consciousness of the 'I' therefore as is not sublated by
anything else has the Self for its object; while, on the other hand,
such consciousness of the 'I' as has the body for its object is mere
Nescience. In agreement with this the Reverend Parāsara has said, 'Hear
from me the essential nature of Nescience; it is the attribution of
Selfhood to what is not the Self.' If the Self were pure consciousness
then pure consciousness only, and not the quality of being a knowing
subject, would present itself in the body also, which is a Not-self
wrongly imagined to be a Self. The conclusion therefore remains that the
Self is nothing but the knowing 'I'. Thus it has been said, 'As is
proved by perception, and as also results from reasoning and tradition,
and from its connexion with ignorance, the Self presents itself as a
knowing 'I'. And again,'That which is different from body, senses, mind,
and vital airs; which does not depend on other means; which is permanent,
pervading, divided according to bodies-that is the Self blessed in
itself.' Here 'not dependent on other means' means 'self-luminous'; and
'pervading' means 'being of such a nature as to enter, owing to
excessive minuteness, into all non-sentient things.'




In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not
stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue.

With reference to the assertion (p. 24 ff.) that Perception, which
depends on the view of plurality, is based on some defect and hence
admits of being otherwise accounted for--whence it follows that it is
sublated by Scripture; we ask you to point out what defect it is on
which Perception is based and may hence be accounted for otherwise.--'
The beginningless imagination of difference' we expect you to reply.--
But, we ask in return, have you then come to know by some other means
that this beginningless imagination of difference, acting in a manner
analogous to that of certain defects of vision, is really the cause of
an altogether perverse view of things?--If you reply that this is known
just from the fact that Perception is in conflict with Scripture, we
point out that you are reasoning in a circle: you prove the
defectiveness of the imagination of plurality through the fact that
Scripture tells us about a substance devoid of all difference; and at
the same time you prove the latter point through the former. Moreover,
if Perception gives rise to perverse cognition because it is based on
the imagination of plurality, Scripture also is in no better case--for
it is based on the very same view.--If against this you urge that
Scripture, although based on a defect, yet sublates Perception in so far
as it is the cause of a cognition which dispels all plurality
apprehended through Perception, and thus is later in order than
Perception; we rejoin that the defectiveness of the foundation of
Scripture having once been recognised, the circumstance of its being
later is of no avail. For if a man is afraid of a rope which he mistakes
for a snake his fear does not come to an end because another man, whom
he considers to be in error himself, tells him 'This is no snake, do not
be afraid.' And that Scripture _is_ founded on something defective is
known at the very time of hearing Scripture, for the reflection (which
follows on hearing) consists in repeated attempts to cognise the oneness
of Brahman--a cognition which is destructive of all the plurality
apprehended through the first hearing of the Veda.--We further ask, 'By
what means do you arrive at the conclusion that Scripture cannot
possibly be assumed to be defective in any way, while defects may be
ascribed to Perception'? It is certainly not Consciousness--self-proved
and absolutely devoid of all difference--which enlightens you on this
point; for such Consciousness is unrelated to any objects whatever, and
incapable of partiality to Scripture. Nor can sense-perception be the
source of your conviction; for as it is founded on what is defective it
gives perverse information. Nor again the other sources of knowledge;
for they are all based on sense-perception. As thus there are no
acknowledged means of knowledge to prove your view, you must give it up.
But, you will perhaps say, we proceed by means of the ordinary empirical
means and objects of knowledge!--What, we ask in reply, do you
understand by 'empirical'?--What rests on immediate unreflective
knowledge, but is found not to hold good when tested by logical
reasoning!--But what is the use, we ask, of knowledge of this kind? If
logical reasoning refutes something known through some means of
knowledge, that means of knowledge is no longer authoritative!--Now you
will possibly argue as follows: 'Scripture as well as Perception is
founded on Nescience; but all the same Perception is sublated by
Scripture. For as the object of Scripture, i.e. Brahman, which is one
and without a second, is not seen to be sublated by any ulterior
cognition, Brahman, i.e. pure non-differenced Consciousness, remains as
the sole Reality.'--But here too you are wrong, since we must decide
that something which rests on a defect is unreal, although it may remain
unrefuted. We will illustrate this point by an analogous instance. Let
us imagine a race of men afflicted with a certain special defect of
vision, without being aware of this their defect, dwelling in some
remote mountain caves inaccessible to all other men provided with sound
eyes. As we assume all of these cave dwellers to be afflicted with the
same defect of vision, they, all of them, will equally see and judge
bright things, e.g. the moon, to be double. Now in the case of these
people there never arises a subsequent cognition sublating their
primitive cognition; but the latter is false all the same, and its
object, viz., the doubleness of the moon, is false likewise; the defect
of vision being the cause of a cognition not corresponding to reality.--
And so it is with the cognition of Brahman also. This cognition is based
on Nescience, and therefore is false, together with its object, viz.
Brahman, although no sublating cognition presents itself.--This
conclusion admits of various expressions in logical form. 'The Brahman
under dispute is false because it is the object of knowledge which has
sprung from what is affected with Nescience; as the phenomenal world is.'
'Brahman is false because it is the object of knowledge; as the world
is.' 'Brahman is false because it is the object of knowledge, the rise
of which has the Untrue for its cause; as the world is.'

You will now perhaps set forth the following analogy. States of dreaming
consciousness--such as the perception of elephants and the like in one's
dreams--are unreal, and yet they are the cause of the knowledge of real
things, viz. good or ill fortune (portended by those dreams). Hence
there is no reason why Scripture--although unreal in so far as based on
Nescience--should not likewise be the cause of the cognition of what is
real, viz. Brahman.--The two cases are not parallel, we reply. The
conscious states experienced in dreams are not unreal; it is only their
objects that are false; these objects only, not the conscious states,
are sublated by the waking consciousness. Nobody thinks 'the cognitions
of which I was conscious in my dream are unreal'; what men actually
think is 'the cognitions are real, but the things are not real.' In the
same way the illusive state of consciousness which the magician produces
in the minds of other men by means of mantras, drugs, &c., is true, and
hence the cause of love and fear; for such states of consciousness also
are not sublated. The cognition which, owing to some defect in the
object, the sense organ, &c., apprehends a rope as a snake is real, and
hence the cause of fear and other emotions. True also is the imagination
which, owing to the nearness of a snake, arises in the mind of a man
though not actually bitten, viz. that he has been bitten; true also is
the representation of the imagined poison, for it may be the cause of
actual death. In the same way the reflection of the face in the water is
real, and hence enables us to ascertain details belonging to the real
face. All these states of consciousness are real, as we conclude from
their having a beginning and actual effects.--Nor would it avail you to
object that in the absence of real elephants, and so on, the ideas of
them cannot be real. For ideas require only _some_ substrate in general;
the mere appearance of a thing is a sufficient substrate, and such an
appearance is present in the case in question, owing to a certain defect.
The thing we determine to be unreal because it is sublated; the idea is
non-sublated, and therefore real.

Nor can you quote in favour of your view--of the real being known
through the unreal--the instance of the stroke and the letter. The
letter being apprehended through the stroke (i.e. the written character)
does not furnish a case of the real being apprehended through the unreal;
for the stroke itself is real.--But the stroke causes the idea of the
letter only in so far as it is apprehended as being a letter, and this
'being a letter' is untrue!--Not so, we rejoin. If this 'being a letter'
were unreal it could not be a means of the apprehension of the letter;
for we neither observe nor can prove that what is non-existent and
indefinable constitutes a means.--Let then the idea of the letter
constitute the means!--In that case, we rejoin, the apprehension of the
real does not spring from the unreal; and besides, it would follow
therefrom that the means and what is to be effected thereby would be one,
i.e. both would be, without any distinction, the idea of the letter only.
Moreover, if the means were constituted by the stroke in so far as it is
_not_ the letter, the apprehension of all letters would result from the
sight of one stroke; for one stroke may easily be conceived as _not_
being _any_ letter.--But, in the same way as the word 'Devadatta'
conventionally denotes some particular man, so some particular stroke
apprehended by the eye may conventionally symbolise some particular
letter to be apprehended by the ear, and thus a particular stroke may be
the cause of the idea of a particular letter!--Quite so, we reply, but
on this explanation the real is known through the real; for both stroke
and conventional power of symbolisation are real. The case is analogous
to that of the idea of a buffalo being caused by the picture of a
buffalo; that idea rests on the similarity of picture and thing
depicted, and that similarity is something real. Nor can it be said
(with a view to proving the pūrvapaksha by another analogous instance)
that we meet with a cognition of the real by means of the unreal in the
case of sound (sabda) which is essentially uniform, but causes the
apprehension of different things by means of difference of tone (nāda).
For sound is the cause of the apprehension of different things in so far
only as we apprehend the connexion of sound manifesting itself in
various tones, with the different things indicated by those various
tones [FOOTNOTE 77:1]. And, moreover, it is not correct to argue on the
ground of the uniformity of sound; for only particular significant
sounds such as 'ga,' which can be apprehended by the ear, are really
'sound.'--All this proves that it is difficult indeed to show that the
knowledge of a true thing, viz. Brahman, can be derived from Scripture,
if Scripture--as based on Nescience--is itself untrue.

Our opponent may finally argue as follows:--Scripture is not unreal in
the same sense as a sky-flower is unreal; for antecedently to the
cognition of universal non-duality Scripture is viewed as something that
_is_, and only on the rise of that knowledge it is seen to be unreal. At
this latter time Scripture no longer is a means of cognising Brahman,
devoid of all difference, consisting of pure Intelligence; as long on
the other hand as it is such a means, Scripture _is_; for then we judge
'Scripture is.'--But to this we reply that if Scripture is not (true),
the judgment 'Scripture is' is false, and hence the knowledge resting on
false Scripture being false likewise, the object of that knowledge, i.e.
Brahman itself, is false. If the cognition of fire which rests on mist
being mistaken for smoke is false, it follows that the object of that
cognition, viz. fire itself, is likewise unreal. Nor can it be shown
that (in the case of Brahman) there is no possibility of ulterior
sublative cognition; for there may be such sublative cognition, viz. the
one expressed in the judgment 'the Reality is a Void.' And if you say
that this latter judgment rests on error, we point out that according to
yourself the knowledge of Brahman is also based on error. And of our
judgment (viz. 'the Reality is a Void') it may truly be said that all
further negation is impossible.--But there is no need to continue this
demolition of an altogether baseless theory.

[FOOTNOTE 77:1. And those manifestations of sound by means of various
tones are themselves something real.]




No scriptural texts teach a Brahman devoid of all difference.

We now turn to the assertion that certain scriptural texts, as e.g.
'Being only was this in the beginning,' are meant to teach that there
truly exists only one homogeneous substance, viz. Intelligence free from
all difference.--This we cannot allow. For the section in which the
quoted text occurs, in order to make good the initial declaration that
by the knowledge of one thing all things are known, shows that the
highest Brahman which is denoted by the term 'Being' is the substantial
and also the operative cause of the world; that it is all-knowing,
endowed with all powers; that its purposes come true; that it is the
inward principle, the support and the ruler of everything; and that
distinguished by these and other good qualities it constitutes the Self
of the entire world; and then finally proceeds to instruct Svetaketu
that this Brahman constitutes his Self also ('Thou art that'). We have
fully set forth this point in the Vedārtha-samgraha and shall establish
it in greater detail in the present work also, in the so-called
ārambhana-adhikarana.--In the same way the passage 'the higher knowledge
is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended, &c.' (Mu. Up. I, 1,
5) first denies of Brahman all the evil qualities connected with Prakriti,
and then teaches that to it there belong eternity, all-pervadingness,
subtilty, omnipresence, omniscience, imperishableness, creativeness with
regard to all beings, and other auspicious qualities. Now we maintain
that also the text 'True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman', does not
prove a substance devoid of all difference, for the reason that the
co-ordination of the terms of which it consists explains itself in so
far only as denoting one thing distinguished by several attributes. For
'co-ordination' (sāmānādhikaranya, lit.'the abiding of several things in
a common substrate') means the reference (of several terms) to one
thing, there being a difference of reason for the application (of
several terms to one thing). Now whether we take the several terms,'
True','Knowledge','Infinite', in their primary sense, i. e. as denoting
qualities, or as denoting modes of being opposed to whatever is contrary
to those qualities; in either case we must needs admit a plurality of
causes for the application of those several terms to one thing. There is
however that difference between the two alternatives that in the former
case the terms preserve their primary meaning, while in the latter case
their denotative power depends on so-called 'implication' (lakshanā).
Nor can it be said that the opposition in nature to non-knowledge,
&c.(which is the purport of the terms on the hypothesis of lakshanā),
constitutes nothing more than the essential nature (of one
non-differenced substance; the three terms thus having one purport
only); for as such essential nature would be sufficiently apprehended
through one term, the employment of further terms would be purposeless.
This view would moreover be in conflict with co-ordination, as it would
not allow of difference of motive for several terms applied to one
thing. On the other hand it cannot be urged against the former
alternative that the distinction of several attributes predicated of one
thing implies a distinction in the thing to which the attributes belong,
and that from this it follows that the several terms denote several
things--a result which also could not be reconciled with
'co-ordination'; for what 'co-ordination' aims at is just to convey the
idea of one thing being qualified by several attributes. For the
grammarians define 'coordination' as the application, to one thing, of
several words, for the application of each of which there is a different
motive.

You have further maintained the following view:--In the text 'one only
without a second', the phrase 'without a second' negatives all duality
on Brahman's part even in so far as qualities are concerned. We must
therefore, according to the principle that all Sākhās convey the same
doctrine, assume that all texts which speak of Brahman as cause, aim at
setting forth an absolutely non-dual substance. Of Brahman thus
indirectly defined as a cause, the text 'The True, knowledge, infinite
is Brahman,' contains a direct definition; the Brahman here meant to be
defined must thus be devoid of all qualities. Otherwise, moreover, the
text would be in conflict with those other texts which declare Brahman
to be without qualities and blemish.--But this also cannot be admitted.
What the phrase 'without a second' really aims at intimating is that
Brahman possesses manifold powers, and this it does by denying the
existence of another ruling principle different from Brahman. That
Brahman actually possesses manifold powers the text shows further on,
'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,' and 'it sent forth fire,'
and so on.--But how are we to know that the mere phrase 'without a
second' is meant to negative the existence of all other causes in
general?--As follows, we reply. The clause 'Being only this was in the
beginning, one only,' teaches that Brahman when about to create
constitutes the substantial cause of the world. Here the idea of some
further operative cause capable of giving rise to the effect naturally
presents itself to the mind, and hence we understand that the added
clause 'without a second' is meant to negative such an additional cause.
If it were meant absolutely to deny all duality, it would deny also the
eternity and other attributes of Brahman which you yourself assume. You
in this case make just the wrong use of the principle of all the--Sākhās
containing the same doctrine; what this principle demands is that the
qualities attributed in all--Sākhās to Brahman as cause should be taken
over into the passage under discussion also. The same consideration
teaches us that also the text 'True, knowledge', &c., teaches Brahman to
possess attributes; for this passage has to be interpreted in agreement
with the texts referring to Brahman as a cause. Nor does this imply a
conflict with the texts which declare Brahman to be without qualities;
for those texts are meant to negative the evil qualities depending on
Prakriti.--Those texts again which refer to mere knowledge declare
indeed that knowledge is the essential nature of Brahman, but this does
not mean that mere knowledge constitutes the fundamental reality. For
knowledge constitutes the essential nature of a knowing subject only
which is the substrate of knowledge, in the same way as the sun, lamps,
and gems are the substrate of Light. That Brahman is a knowing subject
all scriptural texts declare; cp. 'He who is all knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1,
9); 'It thought' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'This divine being thought' (Ch. Up.
VI, 3, 2); 'He thought, let me send forth the worlds' (Ait. Ār. II,4, 1,
2); 'He who arranges the wishes--as eternal of those who are not eternal,
as thinker of (other) thinkers, as one of many' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13);
'There are two unborn ones--one who knows, one who does not know--one
strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I, 9); 'Let us know Him, the highest
of Lords, the great Lord, the highest deity of deities, the master of
masters, the highest above the god, the lord of the world, the adorable
one' (Svet. Up. VI, 7); 'Of him there is known no effect (body) or
instrument; no one is seen like unto him or better; his high power is
revealed as manifold, forming his essential nature, as knowledge,
strength, and action' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'That is the Self, free from
sin, ageless, deathless, griefless, free from hunger and thirst, whose
wishes are true, whose purposes are true' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5). These
and other texts declare that to Brahman, whose essential nature is
knowledge, there belong many excellent qualities--among which that of
being a knowing subject stands first, and that Brahman is free from all
evil qualities. That the texts referring to Brahman as free from
qualities, and those which speak of it as possessing qualities, have
really one and the same object may be inferred from the last of the
passages quoted above; the earlier part of which--'free from sin,' up to
'free from thirst'--denies of Brahman all evil qualities, while its
latter part--'whose wishes are true,' and so on--asserts of its certain
excellent qualities. As thus there is no contradiction between the two
classes of texts, there is no reason whatever to assume that either of
them has for its object something that is false.--With regard to the
concluding passage of the Taittiriya-text, 'from whence all speech,
together with the mind, turns away, unable to reach it [FOOTNOTE 82:1],'
we point out that with the passage 'From terror of it the wind blows,'
there begins a declaration of the qualities of Brahman, and that the
next section 'one hundred times that human bliss,' &c., makes statements
as to the relative bliss enjoyed by the different classes of embodied
souls; the concluding passage 'He who knows the bliss of that Brahman
from whence all speech, together with the mind, turns away unable to
reach it,' hence must be taken as proclaiming with emphasis the infinite
nature of Brahman's auspicious qualities. Moreover, a clause in the
chapter under discussion--viz. 'he obtains all desires, together with
Brahman the all-wise' (II, 1)--which gives information as to the fruit
of the knowledge of Brahman clearly declares the infinite nature of the
qualities of the highest all-wise Brahman. The desires are the
auspicious qualities of Brahman which are the objects of desire; the man
who knows Brahman obtains, together with Brahman, all qualities of it.
The expression 'together with' is meant to bring out the primary
importance of the qualities; as also described in the so-called dahara-
vidyā (Ch. Up. VIII, 1). And that fruit and meditation are of the same
character (i.e. that in meditations on Brahman its qualities are the
chief matter of meditation, just as these qualities are the principal
point in Brahman reached by the Devotee) is proved by the text
'According to what a man's thought is in this world, so will he be after
he has departed this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 1). If it be said that the
passage 'By whom it is not thought by him it is thought', 'not
understood by those who understand' (Ke. Up. II, 3), declares Brahman
not to be an object of knowledge; we deny this, because were it so,
certain other texts would not teach that final Release results from
knowledge; cp. 'He who knows Brahman obtains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II,
1, 1); 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman.' And, moreover, the text
'He who knows Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing; he
who knows Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing' (Taitt
Up. II, 6, 1), makes the existence and non-existence of the Self
dependent on the existence and non-existence of knowledge which has
Brahman for its object. We thus conclude that all scriptural texts
enjoin just the knowledge of Brahman for the sake of final Release. This
knowledge is, as we already know, of the nature of meditation, and what
is to be meditated on is Brahman as possessing qualities. (The text from
the Ke. Up. then explains itself as follows:--) We are informed by the
passage 'from whence speech together with mind turns away, being unable
to reach it', that the infinite Brahman with its unlimited excellences
cannot be defined either by mind or speech as being so or so much, and
from this we conclude the Kena text to mean that Brahman is not thought
and not understood by those who understand it to be of a definitely
limited nature; Brahman in truth being unlimited. If the text did not
mean this, it would be self-contradictory, parts of it saying that
Brahman is _not_ thought and _not_ understood, and other parts, that it
_is_ thought and _is_ understood.

Now as regards the assertion that the text 'Thou mayest not see the seer
of seeing; thou mayest not think the thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. III,
5, 2), denies the existence of a seeing and thinking subject different
from mere seeing and thinking--This view is refuted by the following
interpretation. The text addresses itself to a person who has formed the
erroneous opinion that the quality of consciousness or knowledge does
not constitute the essential nature of the knower, but belongs to it
only as an adventitious attribute, and tells him 'Do not view or think
the Self to be such, but consider the seeing and thinking Self to have
seeing and thinking for its essential nature.'--Or else this text may
mean that the embodied Self which is the seer of seeing and the thinker
of thinking should be set aside, and that only the highest Self--the
inner Self of all beings--should be meditated upon.--Otherwise a
conflict would arise with texts declaring the knowership of the Self,
such as 'whereby should he know the knower?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15).

Your assertion that the text 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1)
proves pure Bliss to constitute the essential nature of Brahman is
already disposed of by the refutation of the view that knowledge
(consciousness) constitutes the essential nature of Brahman; Brahman
being in reality the substrate only of knowledge. For by bliss we
understand a pleasing state of consciousness. Such passages as
'consciousness, bliss is Brahman,' therefore mean 'consciousness--the
essential character of which is bliss--is Brahman.' On this identity of
the two things there rests that homogeneous character of Brahman, so
much insisted upon by yourself. And in the same way as numerous passages
teach that Brahman, while having knowledge for its essential nature, is
at the same time a knowing subject; so other passages, speaking of
Brahman as something separate from mere bliss, show it to be not mere
bliss but a subject enjoying bliss; cp. 'That is one bliss of Brahman'
(Taitt. Up. II, 8, 4); 'he knowing the bliss of Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II,
9, 1). To be a subject enjoying bliss is in fact the same as to be a
conscious subject.

We now turn to the numerous texts which, according to the view of our
opponent, negative the existence of plurality.--'Where there is duality
as it were' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'There is not any plurality here; from
death to death goes he who sees here any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19);
'But when for him the Self alone has become all, by what means, and whom,
should he see?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15) &c.--But what all these texts deny
is only plurality in so far as contradicting that unity of the world
which depends on its being in its entirety an effect of Brahman, and
having Brahman for its inward ruling principle and its true Self. They
do not, on the other hand, deny that plurality on Brahman's part which
depends on its intention to become manifold--a plurality proved by the
text 'May I be many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3). Nor can our
opponent urge against this that, owing to the denial of plurality
contained in other passages this last text refers to something not real;
for it is an altogether laughable assertion that Scripture should at
first teach the doctrine, difficult to comprehend, that plurality as
suggested by Perception and the other means of Knowledge belongs to
Brahman also, and should afterwards negative this very doctrine!

Nor is it true that the text 'If he makes but the smallest "antaram" (i.
e. difference, interval, break) in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up.
II, 7) implies that he who sees plurality within Brahman encounters fear.
For the other text 'All this is Brahman; let a man meditate with calm
mind on all this as beginning, ending and breathing in it, i.e. Brahman'
(Ch. Up. III, 14, 1) teaches directly that reflection on the plurality
of Brahman is the cause of peace of mind. For this passage declares that
peace of mind is produced by a reflection on the entire world as
springing from, abiding within, and being absorbed into Brahman, and
thus having Brahman for its Self; and as thus the view of Brahman
constituting the Self of the world with all its manifold distinctions of
gods, men, animals, inanimate matter and so on, is said to be the cause
of peace of mind, and, consequently, of absence of fear, that same view
surely cannot be a _cause_ of fear!--But how then is it that the Taitt.
text declares that 'there is fear for him'?--That text, we reply,
declares in its earlier part that rest in Brahman is the cause of
fearlessness ('when he finds freedom from fear, rest, in that which is
invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported; then he has obtained
fearlessness'); its latter part therefore means that fear takes place
when there is an interval, a break, in this resting in Brahman. As the
great Rishi says 'When Vāsudeva is not meditated on for an hour or even
a moment only; that is loss, that is great calamity, that is error, that
is change.'

The Sūtra III, 2, ii does not, as our opponent alleges, refer to a
Brahman free from all difference, but to Brahman as possessing
attributes--as we shall show in its place. And the Sūtra IV, 2, 3
declares that the things seen in dreams are mere 'Māyā' because they
differ in character from the things perceived in the waking state; from
which it follows that the latter things are real.

[FOOTNOTE 82:1. Which passage appears to refer to a nirguna brahman,
whence it might be inferred that the connected initial passage--'Satyam
jńanam,' &c.--has a similar purport.]




Nor do Smriti and Purāna teach such a doctrine.

Nor is it true that also according to Smriti and Purānas only non-
differenced consciousness is real and everything else unreal.--'He who
knows me as unborn and without a beginning, the supreme Lord of the
worlds' (Bha. Gī. X, 3); 'All beings abide in me, I abide not in them.
Nay, the beings abide not in me--behold my lordly power. My Self
bringing forth the beings supports them but does not abide in them' (Bha.
Gī. IX, 4, 5); 'I am the origin and the dissolution of the entire world;
higher than I there is nothing else: on me all this is strung as pearls
on a thread' (Bha. Gī. VII, 6, 7); 'Pervading this entire Universe by a
portion (of mine) I abide' (Bha. Gī. X, 42); 'But another, the highest
Person, is called the highest Self who, pervading the three worlds
supports them, the eternal Lord. Because I transcend the Perishable and
am higher than the Imperishable even, I am among the people and in the
Veda celebrated as the supreme Person' (Bha. Gī. XV, 17, 18).

'He transcends the fundamental matter of all beings, its modifications,
properties and imperfections; he transcends all investing (obscuring)
influences, he who is the Self of all. Whatever (room) there is in the
interstices of the world is filled by him; all auspicious qualities
constitute his nature. The whole creation of beings is taken out of a
small part of his power. Assuming at will whatever form he desires he
bestows benefits on the whole world effected by him. Glory, strength,
dominion, wisdom, energy, power and other attributes are collected in
him, Supreme of the supreme in whom no troubles abide, ruler over high
and low, lord in collective and distributive form, non-manifest and
manifest, universal lord, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, highest
Lord. The knowledge by which that perfect, pure, highest, stainless
homogeneous (Brahman) is known or perceived or comprehended--that is
knowledge: all else is ignorance' (Vishnu Purāna VI, 5, 82-87).--'To
that pure one of mighty power, the highest Brahman to which no term is
applicable, the cause of all causes, the name "Bhagavat" is suitable.
The letter bha implies both the cherisher and supporter; the letter ga
the leader, mover and creator. The two syllables bhaga indicate the six
attributes--dominion, strength, glory, splendour, wisdom, dispassion.
That in him--the universal Self, the Self of the beings--all beings
dwell and that he dwells in all, this is the meaning of the letter va.
Wisdom, might, strength, dominion, glory, without any evil qualities,
are all denoted by the word bhagavat. This great word bhagavat is the
name of Vāsudeva who is the highest Brahman--and of no one else. This
word which denotes persons worthy of reverence in general is used in its
primary sense with reference to Vāsudeva only; in a derived sense with
regard to other persons' (Vi. Pu. VI, 5, 72 ff.); 'Where all these
powers abide, that is the form of him who is the universal form: that is
the great form of Hari. That form produces in its sport forms endowed
with all powers, whether of gods or men or animals. For the purpose of
benefiting the worlds, not springing from work (karman) is this action
of the unfathomable one; all-pervading, irresistible' (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 69-
71); 'Him who is of this kind, stainless, eternal, all-pervading,
imperishable, free from all evil, named Vishnu, the highest abode' (Vi.
Pu. I, 22,53); 'He who is the highest of the high, the Person, the
highest Self, founded on himself; who is devoid of all the
distinguishing characteristics of colour, caste and the like; who is
exempt from birth, change, increase, decay and death; of whom it can
only be said that he ever is. He is everywhere and in him everything
abides; hence he is called Vāsudeva by those who know. He is Brahman,
eternal, supreme, imperishable, undecaying; of one essential nature and
ever pure, as free from all defects. This whole world is Brahman,
comprising within its nature the Evolved and the Unevolved; and also
existing in the form of the Person and in that of time' (Vi. Pu. I, 2,
10-14); 'The Prakriti about which I told and which is Evolved as well as
Unevolved, and the Person--both these are merged in the highest Self.
The highest Self is the support of all, the highest Lord; as Vishnu he
is praised in the Vedas and the Vedānta-texts' (Vi. Pu. VI, 4, 38, 39).
'Two forms are there of that Brahman, one material, the other immaterial.
These two forms, perishable and imperishable, are within all things: the
imperishable one is the highest Brahman, the perishable one this whole
world. As the light of a fire burning in one place spreads all around,
so the energy of the highest Brahman constitutes this entire world' (Vi.
Pu. I, 23,53-55). 'The energy of Vishnu is the highest, that which is
called the embodied soul is inferior; and there is another third energy
called karman or Nescience, actuated by which the omnipresent energy of
the embodied soul perpetually undergoes the afflictions of worldly
existence. Obscured by Nescience the energy of the embodied soul is
characterised in the different beings by different degrees of
perfection' (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 61-63).

These and other texts teach that the highest Brahman is essentially free
from all imperfection whatsoever, comprises within itself all auspicious
qualities, and finds its pastime in originating, preserving, reabsorbing,
pervading, and ruling the universe; that the entire complex of
intelligent and non-intelligent beings (souls and matter) in all their
different estates is real, and constitutes the form, i.e. the body of
the highest Brahman, as appears from those passages which co-ordinate it
with Brahman by means of terms such as sarīra (body), rūpa (form), tanu
(body), amsa (part), sakti (power), vibhūti (manifestation of power),
and so on;--that the souls which are a manifestation of Brahman's power
exist in their own essential nature, and also, through their connexion
with matter, in the form of embodied souls (kshetrajńa);--and that the
embodied souls, being engrossed by Nescience in the form of good and
evil works, do not recognise their essential nature, which is knowledge,
but view themselves as having the character of material things.--The
outcome of all this is that we have to cognise Brahman as carrying
plurality within itself, and the world, which is the manifestation of
his power, as something real.

When now the text, in the sloka 'where all difference has vanished' (Vi.
Pu. VI, 7, 53), declares that the Self, although connected with the
different effects of Prakriti, such as divine, human bodies, and so on,
yet is essentially free from all such distinctions, and therefore not
the object of the words denoting those different classes of beings, but
to be defined as mere knowledge and Being; to be known by the Self and
not to be reached by the mind of the practitioner of Yoga (yogayuj);
this must in no way be understood as denying the reality of the world.--
But how is this known?--As follows, we reply. The chapter of the Purāna
in which that sloka occurs at first declares concentration (Yoga) to be
the remedy of all the afflictions of the Samsāra; thereupon explains the
different stages of Yoga up to the so-called pratyāhāra (complete
restraining of the senses from receiving external impressions); then, in
order to teach the attainment of the 'perfect object' (subhāsraya)
required for dhāranā, declares that the highest Brahman, i. e. Vishnu,
possesses two forms, called powers (sakti), viz. a denned one (mūrta)
and an undefined one (amūrta); and then teaches that a portion of the
'defined' form, viz. the embodied soul (kshetrajńa), which is
distinguished by its connexion with matter and involved in Nescience--
that is termed 'action,' and constitutes a third power--is not perfect.
The chapter further teaches that a portion of the undefined form which
is free from Nescience called action, separated from all matter, and
possessing the character of pure knowledge, is also not the 'perfect
object,' since it is destitute of essential purity; and, finally,
declares that the 'perfect object' is to be found in that defined form
which is special to Bhagavat, and which is the abode of the three powers,
viz. that non-defined form which is the highest power, that non-defined
form which is termed embodied soul, and constitutes the secondary
(apara) power, and Nescience in the form of work--which is called the
third power, and is the cause of the Self, which is of the essence of
the highest power, passing into the state of embodied soul. This defined
form (which is the 'perfect object') is proved by certain Vedānta-texts,
such as 'that great person of sun-like lustre' (Svet. Up. III, 8). We
hence must take the sloka, 'in which all differences vanish,' &c., to
mean that the pure Self (the Self in so far as knowledge only) is not
capable of constituting the 'perfect object.' Analogously two other
passages declare 'Because this cannot be reflected upon by the beginner
in Yoga, the second (form) of Vishnu is to be meditated upon by Yogins-
the highest abode.' 'That in which all these powers have their abode,
that is the other great form of Hari, different from the (material)
Visva form.'

In an analogous manner, Parāsara declares that Brahmā, Katurmukha,
Sanaka, and similar mighty beings which dwell within this world, cannot
constitute the 'perfect object' because they are involved in Nescience;
after that goes on to say that the beings found in the Samsāra are in
the same condition--for they are essentially devoid of purity since they
reach their true nature, only later on, when through Yoga knowledge has
arisen in them--; and finally teaches that the essential individual
nature of the highest Brahman, i.e. Vishnu, constitutes the 'perfect
object.' 'From Brahmā down to a blade of grass, all living beings that
dwell within this world are in the power of the Samsāra due to works,
and hence no profit can be derived by the devout from making them
objects of their meditation. They are all implicated in Nescience, and
stand within the sphere of the Samsāra; knowledge arises in them only
later on, and they are thus of no use in meditation. Their knowledge
does not belong to them by essential nature, for it comes to them
through something else. Therefore the stainless Brahman which possesses
essential knowledge,' &c. &c.--All this proves that the passage 'in
which all difference vanishes' does not mean to deny the reality of the
world.

Nor, again, does the passage 'that which has knowledge for its essential
nature' (Vi. Pu. 1,2,6) imply that the whole complex of things different
from knowledge is false; for it declares only that the appearance of the
Self--the essential nature of which is knowledge--as gods, men, and so
on, is erroneous. A declaration that the appearance of mother o' pearl
as silver is founded on error surely does not imply that all the silver
in the world is unreal!--But if, on the ground of an insight into the
oneness of Brahman and the world--as expressed in texts where the two
appear in co-ordination--a text declares that it is an error to view
Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, under the form of material
things, this after all implies that the whole aggregate of things is
false!--By no means, we rejoin. As our sįstra distinctly teaches that
the highest Brahman, i. e. Vishnu, is free from all imperfections
whatsoever, comprises within himself all auspicious qualities, and
reveals his power in mighty manifestations, the view of the world's
reality cannot possibly be erroneous. That information as to the oneness
of two things by means of co-ordination does not allow of sublation (of
either of the two), and is non-contradictory, we shall prove further on.
Hence also the sloka last referred to does not sublate the reality of
the world.

'That from whence these beings are born, by which, when born, they live,
into which they enter when they die, endeavour to know that; that is
Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 1). From this scriptural text we ascertain
that Brahman is the cause of the origination, and so on, of the world.
After this we learn from a Purāna text ('He should make the Veda grow by
means of Itihāsa and Purāna; the Veda fears that a man of little reading
may do it harm') that the Veda should be made to grow by Itihāsa and
Purāna. By this 'making to grow' we have to understand the elucidation
of the sense of the Vedic texts studied by means of other texts,
promulgated by men who had mastered the entire Veda and its contents,
and by the strength of their devotion had gained full intuition of Vedic
truth. Such 'making to grow' must needs be undertaken, since the purport
of the entire Veda with all its Sākhās cannot be fathomed by one who has
studied a small part only, and since without knowing that purport we
cannot arrive at any certitude.

The Vishnu Purāna relates how Maitreya, wishing to have his knowledge of
Vedic matters strengthened by the holy Parāsara, who through the favour
of Pulastya and Vasishtha had obtained an insight into the true nature
of the highest divinity, began to question Parāsara, 'I am desirous to
hear from thee how this world originated, and how it will again
originate in future, and of what it consists, and whence proceed animate
and inanimate things; how and into what it has been resolved, and into
what it will in future be resolved?' &c. (Vi. Pu. I, 1). The questions
asked refer to the essential nature of Brahman, the different modes of
the manifestation of its power, and the different results of
propitiating it. Among the questions belonging to the first category,
the question 'whence proceed animate and inanimate things?' relates to
the efficient and the material cause of the world, and hence the clause
'of what the world consists' is to be taken as implying a question as to
what constitutes the Self of this world, which is the object of creation,
sustentation, and dissolution. The reply to this question is given in
the words 'and the world is He.' Now the identity expressed by this
clause is founded thereon that he (i.e. Brahman or Vishnu) pervades the
world as its Self in the character of its inward Ruler; and is not
founded on unity of substance of the pervading principle and the world
pervaded. The phrase 'consists of' (-maya) does not refer to an effect
(so that the question asked would be as to the causal substance of which
this world is an effect), for a separate question on this point would be
needless. Nor does the--maya express, as it sometimes does-e.g. in the
case of prana-maya [FOOTNOTE 92:1], the own sense of the word to which it
is attached; for in that case the form of the reply 'and the world is
He' (which implies a distinction between the world and Vishnu) would be
inappropriate; the reply would in that case rather be 'Vishnu only.'
What 'maya' actually denotes here is abundance, prevailingness, in
agreement with Pānini, V, 4, 21, and the meaning is that Brahman
prevails in the world in so far as the entire world constitutes its body.
The co-ordination of the two words 'the world' and 'He' thus rests on
that relation between the two, owing to which the world is the body of
Brahman, and Brahman the Self of the world. If, on the other hand, we
maintained that the sāstra aims only at inculcating the doctrine of one
substance free from all difference, there would be no sense in all those
questions and answers, and no sense in an entire nastra devoted to the
explanation of that one thing. In that case there would be room for one
question only, viz. 'what is the substrate of the erroneous imagination
of a world?' and for one answer to this question, viz. 'pure
consciousness devoid of all distinction!'--And if the co-ordination
expressed in the clause 'and the world is he' was meant to set forth the
absolute oneness of the world and Brahman, then it could not be held
that Brahman possesses all kinds of auspicious qualities, and is opposed
to all evil; Brahman would rather become the abode of all that is impure.
All this confirms the conclusion that the co-ordination expressed in
that clause is to be understood as directly teaching the relation
between a Self and its body.--The sloka, 'From Vishnu the world has
sprung: in him he exists: he is the cause of the subsistence and
dissolution of this world: and the world is he' (Vi. Pu. I, 1, 35),
states succinctly what a subsequent passage--beginning with 'the highest
of the high' (Vi. Pu. I, 2, 10)--sets forth in detail. Now there the
sloka,'to the unchangeable one' (I, 2, 1), renders homage to the holy
Vishnu, who is the highest Brahman in so far as abiding within his own
nature, and then the text proceeds to glorify him in his threefold form
as Hiranyagarbha, Hari, and Sankara, as Pradhāna, Time, and as the
totality of embodied souls in their combined and distributed form. Here
the sloka, 'Him whose essential nature is knowledge' (I, 2, 6),
describes the aspect of the highest Self in so far as abiding in the
state of discrete embodied souls; the passage cannot therefore be
understood as referring to a substance free from all difference. If the
sāstra aimed at teaching that the erroneous conception of a manifold
world has for its substrate a Brahman consisting of non-differenced
intelligence, there would be room neither for the objection raised in I,
3, I ('How can we attribute agency creative and otherwise to Brahman
which is without qualities, unlimited, pure, stainless?') nor for the
refutation of that objection, 'Because the powers of all things are the
objects of (true) knowledge excluding all (bad) reasoning, therefore
there belong to Brahman also such essential powers as the power of
creating, preserving, and so on, the world; just as heat essentially
belongs to fire [FOOTNOTE 94:1].' In that case the objection would rather
be made in the following form: 'How can Brahman, which is without
qualities, be the agent in the creation, preservation, and so on, of the
world?' and the answer would be, 'Creation by Brahman is not something
real, but something erroneously imagined.'--The purport of the objection
as it stands in the text is as follows: 'We observe that action creative
and otherwise belongs to beings endowed with qualities such as goodness,
and so on, not perfect, and subject to the influence of karman; how then
can agency creative, and so on, be attributed to Brahman which is devoid
of qualities, perfect, not under the influence of karman, and incapable
of any connexion with action?' And the reply is, 'There is nothing
unreasonable in holding that Brahman as being of the nature described
above, and different in kind from all things perceived, should possess
manifold powers; just as fire, which is different in kind from water and
all other material substances, possesses the quality of heat and other
qualities.' The slokas also, which begin with the words 'Thou alone art
real' (Vi. Pu. I, 4, 38 ff.), do not assert that the whole world is
unreal, but only that, as Brahman is the Self of the world, the latter
viewed apart from Brahman is not real. This the text proceeds to confirm,
'thy greatness it is by which all movable and immovable things are
pervaded.' This means--because all things movable and immovable are
pervaded by thee, therefore all this world has thee for its Self, and
hence 'there is none other than thee' and thus thou being the Self of
all art alone real. Such being the doctrine intended to be set forth,
the text rightly says, 'this all-pervasiveness of thine is thy
greatness'; otherwise it would have to say, 'it is thy error.' Were this
latter view intended, words such as 'Lord of the world,' 'thou,' &c.,
could not, moreover, be taken in their direct sense, and there would
arise a contradiction with the subject-matter of the entire chapter, viz.
the praise of the Holy one who in the form of a mighty boar had uplifted
in play the entire earth.--Because this entire world is thy form in so
far as it is pervaded as its Self by thee whose true nature is knowledge;
therefore those who do not possess that devotion which enables men to
view thee as the Self of all, erroneously view this world as consisting
only of gods, men, and other beings; this is the purport of the next
sloka, 'this which is seen.'--And it is an error not only to view the
world which has its real Self in thee as consisting of gods, men, and so
on, but also to consider the Selfs whose true nature is knowledge as
being of the nature of material beings such as gods, men, and the like;
this is the meaning of the next sloka, 'this world whose true nature is
knowledge.'--Those wise men, on the other hand, who have an insight into
the essentially intelligent Self, and whose minds are cleared by
devotion--the means of apprehending the Holy one as the universal Self--,
they view this entire world with all its manifold bodies--the effects of
primeval matter--as thy body--a body the Self of which is constituted by
knowledge abiding apart from its world-body; this is the meaning of the
following sloka: 'But those who possess knowledge,' &c.--If the
different slokas were not interpreted in this way, they would be mere
unmeaning reiterations; their constitutive words could not be taken in
their primary sense; and we should come into conflict with the sense of
the passages, the subject-matter of the chapter, and the purport of the
entire sāstra. The passage, further, 'Of that Self although it exists in
one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind' (Vi. Pu. II,
14, 31 ff.), refers to that view of duality according to which the
different Selfs--although equal in so far as they are all of the essence
of knowledge--are constituted into separate beings, gods, men, &c., by
their connexion with different portions of matter all of which are
modifications of primary matter, and declares that view to be false. But
this does not imply a denial of the duality which holds good between
matter on the one hand and Self on the other: what the passage means is
that the Self which dwells in the different material bodies of gods, men,
and so on, is of one and the same kind. So the Holy one himself has said,
'In the dog and the low man eating dog's flesh the wise see the same';
'Brahman, without any imperfection, is the same' (Bha. Gī. V, 18, 19).
And, moreover, the clause 'Of the Self although existing in one's own
and in other bodies' directly declares that a thing different from the
body is distributed among one's own and other bodies.

Nor does the passage 'If there is some other (para) different (anya)
from me,' &c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 86) intimate the oneness of the Self; for
in that case the two words 'para' and 'anya' would express one meaning
only (viz. 'other' in the sense of 'distinct from'). The word 'para'
there denotes a Self distinct from that of one's own Self, and the word
'anya' is introduced to negative a character different from that of pure
intelligence: the sense of the passage thus is 'If there is some Self
distinct from mine, and of a character different from mine which is pure
knowledge, then it can be said that I am of such a character and he of a
different character'; but this is not the case, because all Selfs are
equal in as far as their nature consists of pure knowledge.--Also the
sloka beginning 'Owing to the difference of the holes of the flute' (Vi.
Pu. II, 14, 32) only declares that the inequality of the different Selfs
is owing not to their essential nature, but to their dwelling in
different material bodies; and does not teach the oneness of all Selfs.
The different portions of air, again, passing through the different
holes of the flute--to which the many Selfs are compared--are not said
to be one but only to be equal in character; they are one in character
in so far as all of them are of the nature of air, while the different
names of the successive notes of the musical scale are applied to them
because they pass out by the different holes of the instrument. For an
analogous reason the several Selfs are denominated by different names,
viz. gods and so on. Those material things also which are parts of the
substance fire, or water, or earth, are one in so far only as they
consist of one kind of substance; but are not absolutely one; those
different portions of air, therefore, which constitute the notes of the
scale are likewise not absolutely one. Where the Purāna further says 'He
(or "that") I am and thou art He (or "that"); all this universe that has
Self for its true nature is He (or "that"); abandon the error of
distinction' (Vi. Pu. II, 16, 23); the word 'that' refers to the
intelligent character mentioned previously which is common to all Selfs,
and the co-ordination stated in the two clauses therefore intimates that
intelligence is the character of the beings denoted 'I' and 'Thou';
'abandon therefore,' the text goes on to say, 'the illusion that the
difference of outward form, divine and so on, causes a corresponding
difference in the Selfs.' If this explanation were not accepted (but
absolute non-difference insisted upon) there would be no room for the
references to difference which the passages quoted manifestly contain.

Accordingly the text goes on to say that the king acted on the
instruction he had received, 'he abandoned the view of difference,
having recognised the Real.'--But on what ground do we arrive at this
decision (viz. that the passage under discussion is not meant to teach
absolute non-duality)?--On the ground, we reply, that the proper topic
of the whole section is to teach the distinction of the Self and the
body--for this is evident from what is said in an early part of the
section, 'as the body of man, characterised by hands, feet, and the like,'
&c. (Vi. Pu. II, 13, 85).--For analogous reasons the sloka 'When that
knowledge which gives rise to distinction' &c. (Vi. Pu. VI, 7, 94)
teaches neither the essential unity of all Selfs nor the oneness of the
individual Self and the highest Self. And that the embodied soul and the
highest Self should be essentially one, is no more possible than that
the body and the Self should be one. In agreement herewith Scripture
says, 'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of
them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu. Up.
III, 1, 1). 'There are two drinking their reward in the world of their
own works, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those
who know Brahman call them shade and light,' &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, 1). And
in this sāstra also (i.e. the Vishnu Purāna) there are passages of
analogous import; cp. the stanzas quoted above, 'He transcends the
causal matter, all effects, all imperfections such as the gunas' &c.

The Sūtras also maintain the same doctrine, cp. I, 1, 17; I, 2, 21; II,
1, 22; and others. They therein follow Scripture, which in several
places refers to the highest and the individual soul as standing over
against each other, cp. e.g. 'He who dwells in the Self and within the
Self, whom the Self does not know, whose body the Self is, who rules the
Self from within' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Embraced by the intelligent
Self (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 21); 'Mounted by the intelligent Self (IV, 3, 35).
Nor can the individual Self become one with the highest Self by freeing
itself from Nescience, with the help of the means of final Release; for
that which admits of being the abode of Nescience can never become quite
incapable of it. So the Purāna says, 'It is false to maintain that the
individual Self and the highest Self enter into real union; for one
substance cannot pass over into the nature of another substance.'
Accordingly the Bhagavad Gītā declares that the released soul attains
only the same attributes as the highest Self. 'Abiding by this knowledge,
they, attaining to an equality of attributes with me, do neither come
forth at the time of creation, nor are troubled at the time of general
destruction' (XIV, 2). Similarly our Purāna says, 'That Brahman leads
him who meditates on it, and who is capable of change, towards its own
being (ātmabhāva), in the same way as the magnet attracts the iron' (Vi.
Pu. VI, 7, 30). Here the phrase 'leads him towards his own being' means
'imparts to him a nature like his own' (not 'completely identifies him
with itself'); for the attracted body does not become essentially one
with the body attracting.

The same view will be set forth by the Sūtrakāra in IV, 4, 17; 21, and I,
3, 2. The Vritti also says (with reference to Sū. IV, 4, 17) 'with the
exception of the business of the world (the individual soul in the state
of release) is equal (to the highest Self) through light'; and the
author of the Dramidabhāshya says, 'Owing to its equality (sāyujya) with
the divinity the disembodied soul effects all things, like the divinity.'
The following scriptural texts establish the same view, 'Those who
depart from hence, after having known the Self and those true desires,
for them there is freedom in all the worlds' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 6); 'He
who knows Brahman reaches the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'He obtains
all desires together with the intelligent Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1);
'Having reached the Self which consists of bliss, he wanders about in
these worlds having as much food and assuming as many forms as he likes'
(Taitt. Up. III, 10, 5); 'There he moves about' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3);
'For he is flavour; for only after having perceived a flavour can any
one perceive pleasure' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'As the flowing rivers go to
their setting in the sea, losing name and form; thus he who knows, freed
from name and form, goes to the divine Person who is higher than the
high' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8); 'He who knows, shaking off good and evil,
reaches the highest oneness, free from stain' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3).

The objects of meditation in all the vidyās which refer to the highest
Brahman, are Brahman viewed as having qualities, and the fruit of all
those meditations. For this reason the author of the Sūtras declares
that there is option among the different vidyās--cp. Ve. Sū. III, 3, II;
III., 3, 59. In the same way the Vākyakāra teaches that the qualified
Brahman only is the object of meditation, and that there is option of
vidyās; where he says '(Brahman) connected (with qualities), since the
meditation refers to its qualities.' The same view is expressed by the
Bhāshyakāra in the passage beginning 'Although he who bases himself on
the knowledge of Being.'--Texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he becomes
Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9) have the same purport, for they must be
taken in connexion with the other texts (referring to the fate of him
who knows) such as 'Freed from name and form he goes to the divine
Person who is higher than the high'; 'Free from stain he reaches the
highest oneness' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8; III, 1,3); 'Having approached the
highest light he manifests himself in his own shape' (Kh. Up. VIII, 3,
4). Of him who has freed himself from his ordinary name and form, and
all the distinctions founded thereon, and has assumed the uniform
character of intelligence, it may be said that he is of the character of
Brahman.--Our Purāna also propounds the same view. The sloka (VI, 7, 91),
'Knowledge is the means to obtain what is to be obtained, viz. the
highest Brahman: the Self is to be obtained, freed from all kinds of
imagination,' states that that Self which through meditation on Brahman,
is freed from all imagination so as to be like Brahman, is the object to
be attained. (The three forms of imagination to be got rid of are so-
called karma-bhāvanā, brahma-bhāvanā and a combination of the two. See
Vi. Pu. VI, 7.) The text then goes on, 'The embodied Self is the user of
the instrument, knowledge is its instrument; having accomplished Release--
whereby his object is attained--he may leave off.' This means that the
Devotee is to practise meditation on the highest Brahman until it has
accomplished its end, viz. the attainment of the Self free from all
imagination.--The text continues, 'Having attained the being of its
being, then he is non-different from the highest Self; his difference is
founded on Nescience only.' This sloka describes the state of the
released soul. 'Its being' is the being, viz. the character or nature,
of Brahman; but this does not mean absolute oneness of nature; because
in this latter case the second 'being' would be out of place and the
sloka would contradict what had been said before. The meaning is: when
the soul has attained the nature of Brahman, i.e. when it has freed
itself from all false imagination, then it is non-different from the
highest Self. This non-difference is due to the soul, as well as the
highest Self, having the essential nature of uniform intelligence. The
difference of the soul--presenting itself as the soul of a god, a man,
&c.--from the highest Self is not due to its essential nature, but rests
on the basis of Nescience in the form of work: when through meditation
on Brahman this basis is destroyed, the difference due to it comes to an
end, and the soul no longer differs from the highest Self. So another
text says, 'The difference of things of one nature is due to the
investing agency of outward works; when the difference of gods, men,
&c., is destroyed, it has no longer any investing power' (Vi. Pu. II,
14, 33).--The text then adds a further explanation, 'when the knowledge
which gives rise to manifold difference is completely destroyed, who
then will produce difference that has no real existence?' The manifold
difference is the distinction of gods, men, animals, and inanimate
things: compare the saying of Saunaka:'this fourfold distinction is
founded on false knowledge.' The Self has knowledge for its essential
nature; when Nescience called work--which is the cause of the manifold
distinctions of gods, men, &c.--has been completely destroyed through
meditation on the highest Brahman, who then will bring about the
distinction of gods, & c., from the highest Self--a distinction which in
the absence of a cause cannot truly exist.--That Nescience is called
karman (work) is stated in the same chapter of the Purāna (st.
61--avidyā karmasamjńa).

The passage in the Bhagavad Gītā, 'Know me to be the kshetrajńa' (XIII,
2), teaches the oneness of all in so far as the highest Self is the
inward ruler of all; taken in any other sense it would be in conflict
with other texts, such as 'All creatures are the Perishable, the
unchanging soul is the Imperishable; but another is the highest Person'
(Bha. Gī. XV, 16). In other places the Divine one declares that as
inward Ruler he is the Self of all: 'The Lord dwells in the heart of all
creatures' (XVIII, 61), and 'I dwell within the heart of all' (XV, 15).
and 'I am the Self which has its abode within all creatures' (X, 20).
The term 'creature' in these passages denotes the entire aggregate of
body, &c., up to the Self.--Because he is the Self of all, the text
expressly denies that among all the things constituting his body there
is any one separate from him,'There is not anything which is without me'
(X, 39). The place where this text occurs is the winding up of a
glorification of the Divine one, and the text has to be understood
accordingly. The passage immediately following is 'Whatever being there
is, powerful, beautiful, or glorious, even that know thou to have sprung
from a portion of my glory; pervading this entire Universe by a portion
of mine I do abide' (X, 41; 42).

All this clearly proves that the authoritative books do _not_ teach the
doctrine of one non-differenced substance; that they do _not_ teach that
the universe of things is false; and that they do _not_ deny the
essential distinction of intelligent beings, non-intelligent things, and
the Lord.

[FOOTNOTE 92:1. 'Prānamaya' is explained as meaning 'prana' only.]

[FOOTNOTE 94:1. The sense in which this sloka has to be taken is 'As in
ordinary life we ascribe to certain things (e.g. gems, mantras) certain
special powers because otherwise the effects they produce could not be
accounted for; so to Brahman also,' &c.]




The theory of Nescience cannot be proved.

We now proceed to the consideration of Nescience.--According to the view
of our opponent, this entire world, with all its endless distinctions of
Ruler, creatures ruled, and so on, is, owing to a certain defect,
fictitiously superimposed upon the non-differenced, self-luminous
Reality; and what constitutes that defect is beginningless Nescience,
which invests the Reality, gives rise to manifold illusions, and cannot
be denned either as being or non-being. Such Nescience, he says, must
necessarily be admitted, firstly on the ground of scriptural texts, such
as 'Hidden by what is untrue' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2), and secondly because
otherwise the oneness of the individual souls with Brahman--which is
taught by texts such as 'Thou are that'--cannot be established. This
Nescience is neither 'being,' because in that case it could not be the
object of erroneous cognition (bhrama) and sublation (bādha); nor is it
'non-being,' because in that case it could not be the object of
apprehension and sublation [FOOTNOTE 102:1]. Hence orthodox Philosophers
declare that this Nescience falls under neither of these two opposite
categories.

Now this theory of Nescience is altogether untenable. In the first place
we ask, 'What is the substrate of this Nescience which gives rise to the
great error of plurality of existence?' You cannot reply 'the individual
soul'; for the individual soul itself exists in so far only as it is
fictitiously imagined through Nescience. Nor can you say 'Brahman'; for
Brahman is nothing but self-luminous intelligence, and hence
contradictory in nature to Nescience, which is avowedly sublated by
knowledge.

'The highest Brahman has knowledge for its essential nature: if
Nescience, which is essentially false and to be terminated by knowledge,
invests Brahman, who then will be strong enough to put an end to it?'

'What puts an end to Nescience is the knowledge that Brahman is pure
knowledge!'--'Not so, for that knowledge also is, like Brahman, of the
nature of light, and hence has no power to put an end to Nescience.--And
if there exists the knowledge that Brahman is knowledge, then Brahman is
an object of knowledge, and that, according to your own teaching,
implies that Brahman is not of the nature of consciousness.'

To explain the second of these slokas.--If you maintain that what
sublates Nescience is not that knowledge which constitutes Brahman's
essential nature, but rather that knowledge which has for its object the
truth of Brahman being of such a nature, we demur; for as both these
kinds of knowledge are of the same nature, viz. the nature of light,
which is just that which constitutes Brahman's nature, there is no
reason for making a distinction and saying that one knowledge is
contradictory of Nescience, and the other is not. Or, to put it
otherwise--that essential nature of Brahman which is apprehended through
the cognition that Brahman is knowledge, itself shines forth in
consequence of the self-luminous nature of Brahman, and hence we have no
right to make a distinction between that knowledge which constitutes
Brahman's nature, and that of which that nature is the object, and to
maintain that the latter only is antagonistic to Nescience.--Moreover
(and this explains the third sloka), according to your own view Brahman,
which is mere consciousness, cannot be the object of another
consciousness, and hence there is no knowledge which has Brahman for its
object. If, therefore, knowledge is contradictory to non-knowledge
(Nescience), Brahman itself must be contradictory to it, and hence
cannot be its substrate. Shells (mistaken for silver) and the like which
by themselves are incapable of throwing light upon their own true nature
are not contradictory to non-knowledge of themselves, and depend, for
the termination of that non-knowledge, on another knowledge (viz. on the
knowledge of an intelligent being); Brahman, on the other hand, whose
essential nature is established by its own consciousness, is
contradictorily opposed to non-knowledge of itself, and hence does not
depend, for the termination of that non-knowledge, on some other
knowledge.--If our opponent should argue that the knowledge of the
falsity of whatever is other than Brahman is contradictory to non-
knowledge, we ask whether this knowledge of the falsity of what is other
than Brahman is contradictory to the non-knowledge of the true nature of
Brahman, or to that non-knowledge which consists in the view of the
reality of the apparent world. The former alternative is inadmissible;
because the cognition of the falsity of what is other than Brahman has a
different object (from the non-knowledge of Brahman's true nature) and
therefore cannot be contradictory to it; for knowledge and non-knowledge
are contradictory in so far only as they refer to one and the same
object. And with regard to the latter alternative we point out that the
knowledge of the falsity of the world is contradictory to the non-
knowledge which consists in the view of the reality of the world; the
former knowledge therefore sublates the latter non-knowledge only, while
the non-knowledge of the true nature of Brahman is not touched by it.--
Against this it will perhaps be urged that what is here called the non-
knowledge of the true nature of Brahman, really is the view of Brahman
being dual in nature, and that this view is put an end to by the
cognition of the falsity of whatever is other than Brahman; while the
true nature of Brahman itself is established by its own consciousness.--
But this too we refuse to admit. If non-duality constitutes the true
nature of Brahman, and is proved by Brahman's own consciousness, there
is room neither for what is contradictory to it, viz. that non-knowledge
which consists in the view of duality, nor for the sublation of that non-
knowledge.--Let then non-duality be taken for an attribute (not the
essential nature) of Brahman!--This too we refuse to admit; for you
yourself have proved that Brahman, which is pure Consciousness, is free
from attributes which are objects of Consciousness.--From all this it
follows that Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, cannot be the
substrate of Nescience: the theory, in fact, involves a flat
contradiction.

When, in the next place, you maintain that Brahman, whose nature is
homogeneous intelligence, is invested and hidden by Nescience, you
thereby assert the destruction of Brahman's essential nature. Causing
light to disappear means either obstructing the origination of light, or
else destroying light that exists. And as you teach that light
(consciousness) cannot originate, the 'hiding' or 'making to disappear'
of light can only mean its destruction.--Consider the following point
also. Your theory is that self-luminous consciousness, which is without
object and without substrate, becomes, through the influence of an
imperfection residing within itself, conscious of itself as connected
with innumerous substrata and innumerous objects.--Is then, we ask, that
imperfection residing within consciousness something real or something
unreal?--The former alternative is excluded, as not being admitted by
yourself. Nor can we accept the latter alternative; for if we did we
should have to view that imperfection as being either a knowing subject,
or an object of knowledge, or Knowing itself. Now it cannot be 'Knowing,'
as you deny that there is any distinction in the nature of knowing;
and that 'Knowing,' which is the substrate of the imperfection, cannot
be held to be unreal, because that would involve the acceptance of the
Mādhyamika doctrine, viz. of a general void [FOOTNOTE 106:1].

And if knowers, objects of knowledge and knowing as determined by those
two are fictitious, i.e. unreal, we have to assume another fundamental
imperfection, and are thus driven into a _regressuss in infinitum_.--To
avoid this difficulty, it might now be said that real consciousness
itself, which constitutes Brahman's nature, is that imperfection.--But
if Brahman itself constitutes the imperfection, then Brahman is the
basis of the appearance of a world, and it is gratuitous to assume an
additional avidyā to account for the vorld. Moreover, as Brahman is
eternal, it would follow from this hypothesis that no release could ever
take place. Unless, therefore, you admit a real imperfection apart from
Brahman, you are unable to account for the great world-error.

What, to come to the next point, do you understand by the
inexplicability (anirvakaniyatā) of Nescience? Its difference in nature
from that which _is_, as well as that which _is not_! A thing of such
kind would be inexplicable indeed; for none of the means of knowledge
apply to it. That is to say--the whole world of objects must be ordered
according to our states of consciousness, and every state of
consciousness presents itself in the form, either of something existing
or of something non-existing. If, therefore, we should assume that of
states of consciousness which are limited to this double form, the
object can be something which is neither existing nor non-existing, then
anything whatever might be the object of any state of consciousness
whatever.

Against this our opponent may now argue as follows:--There is, after all,
something, called avidyā, or ajńāna, or by some other name, which is a
positive entity (bhāva), different from the antecedent non-existence of
knowledge; which effects the obscuration of the Real; which is the
material cause of the erroneous superimposition on the Real, of manifold
external and internal things; and which is terminated by the cognition
of the true nature of the one substance which constitutes Reality. For
this avidyā is apprehended through Perception as well as Inference.
Brahman, in so far as limited by this avidyā, is the material cause of
the erroneous superimposition--upon the inward Self, which in itself is
changeless pure intelligence, but has its true nature obscured by this
superimposition--of that plurality which comprises the ahamkāra, all
acts of knowledge and all objects of knowledge. Through special forms of
this defect (i.e. avidyā) there are produced, in this world superimposed
upon Reality, the manifold special superimpositions presenting
themselves in the form of things and cognitions of things--such as
snakes (superimposed upon ropes), silver (superimposed on shells), and
the like. Avidyā constitutes the material cause of this entire false
world; since for a false thing we must needs infer a false cause. That
this avidyā or ajńāna (non-knowledge) is an object of internal
Perception, follows from the fact that judgments such as 'I do not know',
'I do not know either myself or others,' directly present themselves to
the mind. A mental state of this kind has for its object not that non-
knowledge which is the antecedent non-existence of knowledge--for such
absence of knowledge is ascertained by the sixth means of proof
(anupalabdhi); it rather is a state which presents its object directly,
and thus is of the same kind as the state expressed in the judgment 'I
am experiencing pleasure.' Even if we admit that 'absence of something'
(abhāva) can be the object of perception, the state of consciousness
under discussion cannot have absence of knowledge in the Self for its
object. For at the very moment of such consciousness knowledge exists;
or if it does not exist there can be no consciousness of the absence of
knowledge. To explain. When I am conscious that I am non-knowing, is
there or is there not apprehension of the Self as having non-existence
of knowledge for its attribute, and of knowledge as the counterentity of
non-knowledge? In the former case there can be no consciousness of the
absence of knowledge, for that would imply a contradiction. In the
latter case, such consciousness can all the less exist, for it
presupposes knowledge of that to which absence of knowledge belongs as
an attribute (viz. the Self) and of its own counterentity, viz.
knowledge. The same difficulty arises if we view the absence of
knowledge as either the object of Inference, or as the object of the
special means of proof called 'abhāva' (i.e. anupalabdhi). If, on the
other hand, non-knowledge is viewed (not as a merely negative, but) as a
positive entity, there arises no contradiction even if there is (as
there is in fact) at the same time knowledge of the Self as qualified by
non-knowledge, and of knowledge as the counterentity of non-knowledge;
and we therefore must accept the conclusion that the state of
consciousness expressed by 'I am non-knowing,' has for its object a non-
knowledge which is a positive entity.--But, a Nescience which is a
positive entity, contradicts the witnessing consciousness, whose nature
consists in the lighting up of the truth of things! Not so, we reply.
Witnessing consciousness has for its object not the true nature of
things, but Nescience; for otherwise the lighting up (i.e. the
consciousness) of false things could not take place. Knowledge which has
for its object non-knowledge (Nescience), does not put an end to that
non-knowledge. Hence there is no contradiction (between kaitanya and
ajńana).--But, a new objection is raised, this positive entity,
Nescience, becomes an object of witnessing Consciousness, only in so far
as it (Nescience) is defined by some particular object (viz. the
particular thing which is not known), and such objects depend for their
proof on the different means of knowledge. How then can that Nescience,
which is defined by the 'I' (as expressed e. g. in the judgment, 'I do
not know myself'), become the object of witnessing Consciousness?--There
is no difficulty here, we reply. All things whatsoever are objects of
Consciousness, either as things known or as things not known. But while
the mediation of the means of knowledge is required in the case of all
those things which, as being non-intelligent (jada), can be proved only
in so far as being objects known (through some means of knowledge), such
mediation is not required in the case of the intelligent (ajada) inner
Self which proves itself. Consciousness of Nescience is thus possible in
all cases (including the case 'I do not know myself'), since witnessing
Consciousness always gives definition to Nescience.--From all this it
follows that, through Perception confirmed by Reasoning, we apprehend
Nescience as a positive entity. This Nescience, viewed as a positive
entity, is also proved by Inference, viz. in the following form: All
knowledge established by one of the different means of proof is preceded
by something else, which is different from the mere antecedent non-
existence of knowledge; which hides the object of knowledge; which is
terminated by knowledge; and which exists in the same place as knowledge;
because knowledge possesses the property of illumining things not
illumined before;--just as the light of a lamp lit in the dark illumines
things.--Nor must you object to this inference on the ground that
darkness is not a substance, but rather the mere absence of light, or
else the absence of visual perception of form and colour, and that hence
darkness cannot be brought forward as a similar instance proving
Nescience to be a positive entity. For that Darkness must be considered
a positive substance follows, firstly, from its being more or less dense,
and secondly, from its being perceived as having colour.

To all this we make the following reply. Neither Perception alone, nor
Perception aided by Reasoning, reveals to us a positive entity,
Nescience, as implied in judgments such as 'I am non-knowing,' 'I know
neither myself nor others.' The contradiction which was urged above
against the view of non-knowledge being the antecedent non-existence of
knowledge, presents itself equally in connexion with non-knowledge
viewed as a positive entity. For here the following alternative presents
itself--the inner Reality is either known or not known as that which
gives definition to Nescience by being either its object or its
substrate. If it be thus known, then there is in it no room for
Nescience which is said to be that which is put an end to by the
cognition of the true nature of the Inner Reality. If, on the other hand,
it be not thus known, how should there be a consciousness of Nescience
in the absence of that which defines it, viz. knowledge of the substrate
or of the object of Nescience?--Let it then be said that what is
contradictory to non-knowledge is the clear presentation of the nature
of the inner Self, and that (while there is consciousness of ajńāna) we
have only an obscure presentation of the nature of the Self; things
being thus, there is no contradiction between the cognition of the
substrate and object of Nescience on the one side, and the consciousness
of ajńāna on the other.--Well, we reply, all this holds good on our side
also. Even if ajńāna means antecedent non-existence of knowledge, we can
say that knowledge of the substrate and object of non-knowledge has for
its object the Self presented obscurely only; and thus there is no
difference between our views--unless you choose to be obstinate!

Whether we view non-knowledge as a positive entity or as the antecedent
non-existence of knowledge, in either case it comes out as what the word
indicates, viz. non-knowledge. Non-knowledge means either absence of
knowledge, or that which is other than knowledge, or that which is
contradictory to knowledge; and in any of these cases we have to admit
that non-knowledge presupposes the cognition of the nature of knowledge.
Even though the cognition of the nature of darkness should not require
the knowledge of the nature of light, yet when darkness is considered
under the aspect of being contrary to light, this presupposes the
cognition of light. And the non-knowledge held by you is never known in
its own nature but merely as 'non-knowledge,' and it therefore
presupposes the cognition of knowledge no less than our view does,
according to which non-knowledge is simply the negation of knowledge.
Now antecedent non-existence of knowledge is admitted by you also, and
is an undoubted object of consciousness; the right conclusion therefore
is that what we are conscious of in such judgments as 'I am non-knowing,'
&c., is this very antecedent non-existence of knowledge which we both
admit.

It, moreover, is impossible to ascribe to Brahman, whose nature is
constituted by eternal free self-luminous intelligence, the
consciousness of Nescience; for what constitutes its essence is
consciousness of itself. If against this you urge that Brahman, although
having consciousness of Self for its essential nature, yet is conscious
of non-knowledge in so far as its (Brahman's) nature is hidden; we ask
in return what we have to understand by Brahman's nature being hidden.
You will perhaps say 'the fact of its not being illumined.' But how, we
ask, can there be absence of illumination of the nature of that whose
very nature consists in consciousness of Self, i.e. self-illumination?
If you reply that even that whose nature is consciousness of Self may be
in the state of its nature not being illumined by an outside agency, we
point out that as according to you light cannot be considered us an
attribute, but constitutes the very nature of Brahman, it would--
illumination coming from an external agency--follow that the very nature
of Brahman can be destroyed from the outside. This we have already
remarked.--Further, your view implies on the one hand that this non-
knowledge which is the cause of the concealment of Brahman's nature
hides Brahman in so far as Brahman is conscious of it, and on the other
hand that having hidden Brahman, it becomes the object of consciousness
on the part of Brahman; and this evidently constitutes a logical see-saw.
You will perhaps say [FOOTNOTE 111:1] that it hides Brahman in so far
only as Brahman is conscious of it. But, we point out, if the
consciousness of ajńāna takes place on the part of a Brahman whose
nature is not hidden, the whole hypothesis of the 'hiding' of Brahman's
nature loses its purport, and with it the fundamental hypothesis as to
the nature of ajnāna; for if Brahman may be conscious of ajnāna (without
a previous obscuration of its nature by ajnāna) it may as well be held
to be in the same way conscious of the world, which, by you, is
considered to be an effect of ajnāna.

How, further, do you conceive this consciousness of ajnāna on Brahman's
part? Is it due to Brahman itself, or to something else? In the former
case this consciousness would result from Brahman's essential nature,
and hence there would never be any Release. Or else, consciousness of
ajnāna constituting the nature of Brahman, which is admittedly pure
consciousness, in the same way as the consciousness of false silver is
terminated by that cognition which sublates the silver, so some
terminating act of cognition would eventually put an end to Brahman's
essential nature itself.--On the second alternative we ask what that
something else should be. If you reply 'another ajnāna,' we are led into
a _regressus in infinitum_.--Let it then be said [FOOTNOTE 112:1] that
ajnāna having first hidden Brahman then becomes the object of its
consciousness. This, we rejoin, would imply that ajnāna acting like a
defect of the eye by its very essential being hides Brahman, and then
ajnāna could not be sublated by knowledge. Let us then put the case as
follows:--Ajnāna, which is by itself beginningless, at the very same
time effects Brahman's witnessing it (being conscious of it), and
Brahman's nature being hidden; in this way the _regressus in infinitum_
and other difficulties will be avoided.--But this also we cannot admit;
for Brahman is essentially consciousness of Self, and cannot become a
witnessing principle unless its nature be previously hidden.--Let then
Brahman be hidden by some other cause!--This, we rejoin, would take away
from ajnāna its alleged beginninglessness, and further would also lead
to an infinite regress. And if Brahman were assumed to become a witness,
without its essential nature being hidden, it could not possess--what
yet it is maintained to possess--the uniform character of consciousness
of Self.--If, moreover, Brahman is hidden by avidyā, does it then not
shine forth at all, or does it shine forth to some extent? On the former
alternative the not shining forth of Brahman--whose nature is mere light--
reduces it to an absolute non-entity. Regarding the latter alternative
we ask, 'of Brahman, which is of an absolutely homogeneous nature, which
part do you consider to be concealed, and which to shine forth?' To that
substance which is pure light, free from all division and distinction,
there cannot belong two modes of being, and hence obscuration and light
cannot abide in it together.--Let us then say that Brahman, which is
homogeneous being, intelligence, bliss, has its nature obscured by
avidyā, and hence is seen indistinctly as it were.--But how, we ask, are
we to conceive the distinctness or indistinctness of that whose nature
is pure light? When an object of light which has parts and
distinguishing attributes appears in its totality, we say that it
appears distinctly; while we say that its appearance is indistinct when
some of its attributes do not appear. Now in those aspects of the thing
which do not appear, light (illumination) is absent altogether, and
hence we cannot there speak of indistinctness of light; in those parts
on the other hand which do appear, the light of which they are the
object is distinct. Indistinctness is thus not possible at all where
there is light. In the case of such things as are apprehended as objects,
indistinctness may take place, viz. in so far as some of their
distinguishing attributes are not apprehended. But in Brahman, which is
not an object, without any distinguishing attributes, pure light, the
essential nature of which it is to shine forth, indistinctness which
consists in the non-apprehension of certain attributes can in no way be
conceived, and hence not be explained as the effect of avidyā.

We, moreover, must ask the following question: 'Is this indistinctness
which you consider an effect of avidyā put an end to by the rise of true
knowledge or not?' On the latter alternative there would be no final
release. In the former case we have to ask of what nature Reality is.
'It is of an essentially clear and distinct nature.' Does this nature
then exist previously (to the cessation of indistinctness), or not? If
it does, there is no room whatever either for indistinctness the effect
of avidyā, or for its cessation. If it does not previously exist, then
Release discloses itself as something to be effected, and therefore non-
eternal.--And that such non-knowledge is impossible because there is no
definable substrate for it we have shown above.--He, moreover, who holds
the theory of error resting on a non-real defect, will find it difficult
to prove the impossibility of error being without any substrate; for, if
the cause of error may be unreal, error may be supposed to take place
even in case of its substrate being unreal. And the consequence of this
would be the theory of a general Void.

The assertion, again, that non-knowledge as a positive entity is proved
by Inference, also is groundless. But the inference was actually set
forth!--True; but it was set forth badly. For the reason you employed
for proving ajńāna is a so-called contradictory one (i.e. it proves the
contrary of what it is meant to prove), in so far as it proves what is
not desired and what is different from ajńāna (for what it proves is
that there is a certain _knowledge_, viz. that all knowledge resting on
valid means of proof has non-knowledge for its antecedent). (And with
regard to this knowledge again we must ask whether it also has non-
knowledge for its antecedent.) If the reason (relied on in all this
argumentation) does not prove, in this case also, the antecedent
existence of positive non-knowledge, it is too general (and hence not to
be trusted in any case). If, on the other hand, it does prove antecedent
non-knowledge, then this latter non-knowledge stands in the way of the
non-knowledge (which you try to prove by inference) being an object of
consciousness, and thus the whole supposition of ajńāna as an entity
becomes useless.

The proving instance, moreover, adduced by our opponent, has no proving
power; for the light of a lamp does not possess the property of
illumining things not illumined before. Everywhere illumining power
belongs to knowledge only; there may be light, but if there is not also
Knowledge there is no lighting up of objects. The senses also are only
causes of the origination of knowledge, and possess no illumining power.
The function of the light of the lamp on the other hand is a merely
auxiliary one, in so far as it dispels the darkness antagonistic to the
organ of sight which gives rise to knowledge; and it is only with a view
to this auxiliary action that illumining power is conventionally
ascribed to the lamp.--But in using the light of the lamp as a proving
instance, we did not mean to maintain that it possesses illumining power
equal to that of light; we introduced it merely with reference to the
illumining power of knowledge, in so far as preceded by the removal of
what obscures its object!--We refuse to accept this explanation.
Illumining power does not only mean the dispelling of what is
antagonistic to it, but also the defining of things, i.e. the rendering
them capable of being objects of empirical thought and speech; and this
belongs to knowledge only (not to the light of the lamp). If you allow
the power of illumining what was not illumined, to auxiliary factors
also, you must first of all allow it to the senses which are the most
eminent factors of that kind; and as in their case there exists no
different thing to be terminated by their activity, (i.e. nothing
analogous to the ajńāna to be terminated by knowledge), this whole
argumentation is beside the point.

There are also formal inferences, opposed to the conclusion of the
pūrvapakshin.--Of the ajńāna under discussion, Brahman, which is mere
knowledge, is not the substrate, just because it is ajńāna; as shown by
the case of the non-knowledge of the shell (mistaken for silver) and
similar cases; for such non-knowledge abides within the knowing subject.--
The ajńāna under discussion does not obscure knowledge, just because it
is ajńāna; as shown by the cases of the shell, &c.; for such non-
knowledge hides the object.--Ajńāna is not terminated by knowledge,
because it does not hide the object of knowledge; whatever non-knowledge
is terminated by knowledge, is such as to hide the object of knowledge;
as e.g. the non-knowledge of the shell.--Brahman is not the substrate of
ajńāna, because it is devoid of the character of knowing subject; like
jars and similar things.--Brahman is not hidden by ajńāna, because it is
not the object of knowledge; whatever is hidden by non-knowledge is the
object of knowledge; so e.g. shells and similar things.--Brahman is not
connected with non-knowledge to be terminated by knowledge, because it
is not the object of knowledge; whatever is connected with non-knowledge
to be terminated by knowledge is an object of knowledge; as e.g. shells
and the like. Knowledge based on valid means of proof, has not for its
antecedent, non-knowledge other than the antecedent non-existence of
knowledge; just because it is knowledge based on valid proof; like that
valid knowledge which proves the ajńāna maintained by you.--Knowledge
does not destroy a real thing, because it is knowledge in the absence of
some specific power strengthening it; whatever is capable of destroying
things is--whether it be knowledge or ajńāna--strengthened by some
specific power; as e.g. the knowledge of the Lord and of Yogins; and as
the ajńāna consisting in a pestle (the blow of which destroys the pot).

Ajńāna which has the character of a positive entity cannot be destroyed
by knowledge; just because it is a positive entity, like jars and
similar things.

But, it now may be said, we observe that fear and other affections,
which are positive entities and produced by previous cognitions, are
destroyed by sublative acts of cognition!--Not so, we reply. Those
affections are not destroyed by knowledge; they rather pass away by
themselves, being of a momentary (temporary) nature only, and on the
cessation of their cause they do not arise again. That they are of a
momentary nature only, follows from their being observed only in
immediate connexion with the causes of their origination, and not
otherwise. If they were not of a temporary nature, each element of the
stream of cognitions, which are the cause of fear and the like, would
give rise to a separate feeling of fear, and the result would be that
there would be consciousness of many distinct feelings of fear (and this
we know not to be the case).--In conclusion we remark that in defining
right knowledge as 'that which has for its antecedent another entity,
different from its own antecedent non-existence,' you do not give proof
of very eminent logical acuteness; for what sense has it to predicate of
an entity that it is different from nonentity?--For all these reasons
Inference also does not prove an ajńāna which is a positive entity. And
that it is not proved by Scripture and arthāpatti, will be shown later
on. And the reasoning under Sū. II, 1, 4. will dispose of the argument
which maintains that of a false thing the substantial cause also must be
false.

We thus see that there is no cognition of any kind which has for its
object a Nescience of 'inexplicable' nature.--Nor can such an
inexplicable entity be admitted on the ground of apprehension, erroneous
apprehension and sublation (cp. above, p. 102). For that only which is
actually apprehended, can be the object of apprehension, error and
sublation, and we have no right to assume, as an object of these states
of consciousness, something which is apprehended neither by them nor any
other state of consciousness.--'But in the case of the shell, &c.,
silver is actually apprehended, and at the same time there arises the
sublating consciousness "this silver is not real," and it is not
possible that one thing should appear as another; we therefore are
driven to the hypothesis that owing to some defect, we actually
apprehend silver of an altogether peculiar kind, viz. such as can be
defined neither as real nor as unreal.'--This also we cannot allow,
since this very assumption necessarily implies that one thing appears as
another. For apprehension, activity, sublation, and erroneous cognition,
all result only from one thing appearing as another, and it is not
reasonable to assume something altogether non-perceived and groundless.
The silver, when apprehended, is not apprehended as something
'inexplicable,' but as something real; were it apprehended under the
former aspect it could be the object neither of erroneous nor of
sublative cognition, nor would the apprehending person endeavour to
seize it. For these reasons you (the anirva-kaniyatva-vādin) also must
admit that the actual process is that of one thing appearing as another.

Those also who hold other theories as to the kind of cognition under
discussion (of which the shell, mistaken for silver, is an instance)
must--whatsoever effort they may make to avoid it--admit that their
theory finally implies the appearing of one thing as another. The so-
called asatkhyāti-view implies that the non-existing appears as existing;
the ātmakhyāti-view, that the Self--which here means 'cognition'--
appears as a thing; and the akhyāti-view, that the attribute of one
thing appears as that of another, that two acts of cognition appear as
one, and--on the view of the non-existence of the object--that the non-
existing appears as existing [FOOTNOTE 118:1].

Moreover, if you say that there is originated silver of a totally new
inexplicable kind, you are bound to assign the cause of this origination.
This cause cannot be the perception of the silver; for the perception
has the silver for its object, and hence has no existence before the
origination of the silver. And should you say that the perception,
having arisen without an object, produces the silver and thereupon makes
it its object, we truly do not know what to say to such excellent
reasoning!--Let it then be said that the cause is some defect in the
sense-organ.--This, too, is inadmissible; for a defect abiding in the
percipient person cannot produce an objective effect.--Nor can the
organs of sense (apart from defects) give rise to the silver; for they
are causes of cognitions only (not of things cognised). Nor, again, the
sense-organs in so far as modified by some defect; for they also can
only produce modifications in what is effected by them, i.e. cognition.
And the hypothesis of a beginningless, false ajńāna constituting the
general material cause of all erroneous cognitions has been refuted
above.

How is it, moreover, that this new and inexplicable thing (which you
assume to account for the silver perceived on the shell) becomes to us
the object of the idea and word 'silver,' and not of some other idea and
term, e.g. of a jar?--If you reply that this is due to its similarity to
silver, we point out that in that case the idea and the word presenting
themselves to our mind should be that of 'something resembling silver.'
Should you, on the other hand, say that we apprehend the thing as silver
because it possesses the generic characteristics of silver, we ask
whether these generic characteristics are real or unreal. The former
alternative is impossible, because something real cannot belong to what
is unreal; and the latter is impossible because something unreal cannot
belong to what is real.

But we need not extend any further this refutation of an altogether ill-
founded theory.

[FOOTNOTE 102:1. 'Nescience' is sublated (refuted) by the cognition of
Brahman, and thereby shown to have been the object of erroneous
cognition: it thus cannot be 'being,' i.e. real. Nor can it be
altogether unreal, 'non-being,' because in that case it could not be the
object either of mental apprehension or of sublation.]

[FOOTNOTE 106:1. If the imperfection inhering in Consciousness is itself
of the nature of consciousness, and at the same time unreal, we should
have to distinguish two kinds of Consciousness--which is contrary to the
fundamental doctrine of the oneness of Consciousness. And if, on the
other hand, we should say that the Consciousness in which the
imperfection inheres is of the same nature as the latter, i.e. unreal,
we are landed in the view of universal unreality.]

[FOOTNOTE 111:1. Allowing the former view of the question only.]

[FOOTNOTE 112:1. Adopting the latter view only; see preceding note.]

[FOOTNOTE 118:1. For a full explanation of the nature of these 'khyātis,'
see A. Venis' translation of the Vedānta Siddhānta Muktāvali (Reprint
from the Pandit, p. 130 ff.).]




All knowledge is of the Real.

'Those who understand the Veda hold that all cognition has for its
object what is real; for Sruti and Smriti alike teach that everything
participates in the nature of everything else. In the scriptural account
of creation preceded by intention on the part of the Creator it is said
that each of these elements was made tripartite; and this tripartite
constitution of all things is apprehended by Perception as well. The red
colour in burning fire comes from (primal elementary) fire, the white
colour from water, the black colour from earth--in this way Scripture
explains the threefold nature of burning fire. In the same way all
things are composed of elements of all things. The Vishnu Purāna, in its
account of creation, makes a similar statement: "The elements possessing
various powers and being unconnected could not, without combination,
produce living beings, not having mingled in any way. Having combined,
therefore, with one another, and entering into mutual associations--
beginning with the principle called Mahat, and extending down to the
gross elements--they formed an egg," &c. (Vi. Pu. I, 2, 50; 52). This
tripartiteness of the elements the Sūtrakāra also declares (Ve. Sū. III,
1, 3). For the same reason Sruti enjoins the use of Putīka sprouts when
no Soma can be procured; for, as the Mīmāmsakas explain, there are in
the Putīka plant some parts of the Soma plant (Pū. Mī. Sū.); and for the
same reason nīvāra grains may be used as a substitute for rice grains.
That thing is similar to another which contains within itself some part
of that other thing; and Scripture itself has thus stated that in shells,
&c., there is contained some silver, and so on. That one thing is
called "silver" and another "shell" has its reason in the relative
preponderance of one or the other element. We observe that shells are
similar to silver; thus perception itself informs us that some elements
of the latter actually exist in the former. Sometimes it happens that
owing to a defect of the eye the silver-element only is apprehended, not
the shell-element, and then the percipient person, desirous of silver,
moves to pick up the shell. If, on the other hand, his eye is free from
such defect, he apprehends the shell-element and then refrains from
action. Hence the cognition of silver in the shell is a true one. In the
same way the relation of one cognition being sublated by another
explains itself through the preponderant element, according as the
preponderance of the shell-element is apprehended partially or in its
totality, and does not therefore depend on one cognition having for its
object the false thing and another the true thing. The distinctions made
in the practical thought and business of life thus explain themselves on
the basis of everything participating in the nature of everything else.'

In dreams, again, the divinity creates, in accordance with the merit or
demerit of living beings, things of a special nature, subsisting for a
certain time only, and perceived only by the individual soul for which
they are meant. In agreement herewith Scripture says, with reference to
the state of dreaming, 'There are no chariots in that state, no horses,
no roads; then he creates chariots, horses, and roads. There are no
delights, no joys, no bliss; then he creates delights, joys, and bliss.
There are no tanks, no lakes, no rivers; then he creates tanks, lakes,
and rivers. For he is the maker' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 10). The meaning of
this is, that although there are then no chariots, &c., to be perceived
by other persons, the Lord creates such things to be perceived by the
dreaming person only. 'For he is the maker'; for such creative agency
belongs to him who possesses the wonderful power of making all his
wishes and plans to come true. Similarly another passage, 'That person
who is awake in those who are asleep, shaping one lovely sight after
another, that indeed is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is
called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes
beyond it' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 8).--The Sūtrakāra also, after having in two
Sūtras (III, 2, 1; 2) stated the hypothesis of the individual soul
creating the objects appearing in dreams, finally decides that that
wonderful creation is produced by the Lord for the benefit of the
individual dreamer; for the reason that as long as the individual soul
is in the samsāra state, its true nature--comprising the power of making
its wishes to come true--is not fully manifested, and hence it cannot
practically exercise that power. The last clause of the Katha text ('all
worlds are contained in it,' &c.) clearly shows that the highest Self
only is the creator meant. That the dreaming person who lies in his
chamber should go in his body to other countries and experience various
results of his merit or demerit--being at one time crowned a king,
having at another time his head cut off, and so on--is possible in so
far as there is created for him another body in every way resembling the
body resting on the bed.

The case of the white shell being seen as yellow, explains itself as
follows. The visual rays issuing from the eye are in contact with the
bile contained in the eye, and thereupon enter into conjunction with the
shell; the result is that the whiteness belonging to the shell is
overpowered by the yellowness of the bile, and hence not apprehended;
the shell thus appears yellow, just as if it were gilt. The bile and its
yellowness is, owing to its exceeding tenuity, not perceived by the
bystanders; but thin though it be it is apprehended by the person
suffering from jaundice, to whom it is very near, in so far as it issues
from his own eye, and through the mediation of the visual rays, aided by
the action of the impression produced on the mind by that apprehension,
it is apprehended even in the distant object, viz. the shell.--In an
analogous way the crystal which is placed near the rose is apprehended
as red, for it is overpowered by the brilliant colour of the rose; the
brilliancy of the rose is perceived in a more distinct way owing to its
close conjunction with the transparent substance of the crystal.--In the
same way the cognition of water in the mirage is true. There always
exists water in connexion with light and earth; but owing to some defect
of the eye of the perceiving person, and to the mysterious influence of
merit and demerit, the light and the earth are not apprehended, while
the water _is_ apprehended.--In the case again of the firebrand swung
round rapidly, its appearance as a fiery wheel explains itself through
the circumstance that moving very rapidly it is in conjunction with all
points of the circle described without our being able to apprehend the
intervals. The case is analogous to that of the perception of a real
wheel; but there is the difference that in the case of the wheel no
intervals are apprehended, because there are none; while in the case of
the firebrand none are apprehended owing to the rapidity of the movement.
But in the latter case also the cognition is true.--Again, in the case
of mirrors and similar reflecting surfaces the perception of one's own
face is likewise true. The fact is that the motion of the visual rays
(proceeding from the eye towards the mirror) is reversed (reflected) by
the mirror, and that thus those rays apprehend the person's own face,
subsequently to the apprehension of the surface of the mirror; and as in
this case also, owing to the rapidity of the process, there is no
apprehension of any interval (between the mirror and the face), the face
presents itself as being in the mirror.--In the case of one direction
being mistaken for another (as when a person thinks the south to be
where the north is), the fact is that, owing to the unseen principle (i.
e. merit or demerit), the direction which actually exists in the other
direction (for a point which is to the north of me is to the south of
another point) is apprehended by itself, apart from the other elements
of direction; the apprehension which actually takes place is thus
likewise true. Similar is the case of the double moon. Here, either
through pressure of the finger upon the eye, or owing to some abnormal
affection of the eye, the visual rays are divided (split), and the
double, mutually independent apparatus of vision thus originating,
becomes the cause of a double apprehension of the moon. One apparatus
apprehends the moon in her proper place; the other which moves somewhat
obliquely, apprehends at first a place close by the moon, and then the
moon herself, which thus appears somewhat removed from her proper place.
Although, therefore, what is apprehended is the one moon distinguished
by connection with two places at the same time--an apprehension due to
the double apparatus of vision--yet, owing to the difference of
apprehensions, there is a difference in the character of the object
apprehended, and an absence of the apprehension of unity, and thus a
double moon presents itself to perception. That the second spot is
viewed as qualifying the moon, is due to the circumstance that the
apprehension of that spot, and that of the moon which is not apprehended
in her proper place, are simultaneous. Now here the doubleness of the
apparatus is real, and hence the apprehension of the moon distinguished
by connexion with two places is real also, and owing to this doubleness
of apprehension, the doubleness of aspect of the object apprehended, i.e.
the moon, is likewise real. That there is only one moon constituting the
true object of the double apprehension, this is a matter for which
ocular perception by itself does not suffice, and hence what is actually
seen is a double moon. That, although the two eyes together constitute
one visual apparatus only, the visual rays being divided through some
defect of the eyes, give rise to a double apparatus--this we infer from
the effect actually observed. When that defect is removed there takes
place only one apprehension of the moon as connected with her proper
place, and thus the idea of one moon only arises. It is at the same time
quite clear how the defect of the eye gives rise to a double visual
apparatus, the latter to a double apprehension, and the latter again to
a doubleness of the object of apprehension.

We have thus proved that all cognition is true. The shortcomings of
other views as to the nature of cognition have been set forth at length
by other philosophers, and we therefore do not enter on that topic. What
need is there, in fact, of lengthy proofs? Those who acknowledge the
validity of the different means of knowledge, perception, and so on, and--
what is vouched for by sacred tradition--the existence of a highest
Brahman--free from all shadow of imperfection, of measureless excellence,
comprising within itself numberless auspicious qualities, all-knowing,
immediately realising all its purposes--, what should they not be able
to prove? That holy highest Brahman--while producing the entire world as
an object of fruition for the individual souls, in agreement with their
respective good and ill deserts--creates certain things of such a nature
as to become common objects of consciousness, either pleasant or
unpleasant, to all souls together, while certain other things are
created in such a way as to be perceived only by particular persons, and
to persist for a limited time only. And it is this distinction--viz. of
things that are objects of general consciousness, and of things that are
not so--which makes the difference between what is called 'things
sublating' and 'things sublated.'--Everything is explained hereby.




Neither Scripture nor Smriti and Purāna teach Nescience.

The assertion that Nescience--to be defined neither as that which is nor
as that which is not--rests on the authority of Scripture is untrue. In
passages such as 'hidden by the untrue' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2), the word
'untrue' does not denote the Undefinable; it rather means that which is
different from 'rita,' and this latter word--as we see from the passage
'enjoying the rita' (Ka. Up. 1,3, 1)--denotes such actions as aim at no
worldly end, but only at the propitiation of the highest Person, and
thus enable the devotee to reach him. The word 'anrita' therefore
denotes actions of a different kind, i.e. such as aim at worldly results
and thus stand in the way of the soul reaching Brahman; in agreement
with the passage 'they do not find that Brahma-world, for they are
carried away by anrita' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2). Again, in the text 'Then
there was neither non-Being nor Being' (Ri. Samh. X, 129, 1), the terms
'being' and 'non-being' denote intelligent and non-intelligent beings in
their distributive state. What that text aims at stating is that
intelligent and non-intelligent beings, which at the time of the
origination of the world are called 'sat' and 'tyat' (Taitt. Up. II, 6),
are, during the period of reabsorption, merged in the collective
totality of non-intelligent matter which the text denotes by the term
'darkness' (Ri. Samh. X, 129, 3). There is thus no reference whatever to
something 'not definable either as being or non-being': the terms
'being' and 'non-being' are applied to different mode; of being at
different times. That the term 'darkness' denotes the collective
totality of non-intelligent matter appears from another scriptural
passage, viz, 'The Non-evolved (avyaktam) is merged in the Imperishable
(akshara), the Imperishable in darkness (tamas), darkness becomes one
with the highest divinity.' True, the word 'darkness' denotes the subtle
condition of primeval matter (prakriti), which forms the totality of non-
intelligent things; but this very Prakriti is called Māyā--in the text
'Know Prakriti to be Māyā,' and this proves it be something
'undefinable': Not so, we reply; we meet with no passages where the word
'Māyā' denotes that which is undefinable. But the word 'Māyā' is
synonymous with 'mithyā,' i.e. falsehood, and hence denotes the
Undefinable also. This, too, we cannot admit; for the word 'Māyā' does
not in all places refer to what is false; we see it applied e.g. to such
things as the weapons of Asuras and Rākshasas, which are not 'false' but
real. 'Māyā,' in such passages, really denotes that which produces
various wonderful effects, and it is in this sense that Prakriti is
called Māyā. This appears from the passage (Svet. Up. IV, 9) 'From that
the "māyin" creates all this, and in that the other one is bound up by
māyā.' For this text declares that Prakriti--there called Māyā--produces
manifold wonderful creations, and the highest Person is there called
'māyin' because he possesses that power of māyā; not on account of any
ignorance or nescience on his part. The latter part of the text
expressly says that (not the Lord but) another one, i.e. the individual
soul is bound up by māyā; and therewith agrees another text, viz. 'When
the soul slumbering in beginningless Māyā awakes' (Gaud. Kā.). Again, in
the text 'Indra goes multiform through the Māyās' (Ri. Samh. VI, 47, 18),
the manifold powers of Indra are spoken of, and with this agrees what
the next verse says, 'he shines greatly as Tvashtri': for an unreal
being does not shine. And where the text says 'my Māyā is hard to
overcome' (Bha. Gī. VII, 14), the qualification given there to Māyā, viz.
'consisting of the gunas,' shows that what is meant is Prakriti
consisting of the three gunas.--All this shows that Scripture does not
teach the existence of a 'principle called Nescience, not to be defined
either as that which is or that which is not.'

Nor again is such Nescience to be assumed for the reason that otherwise
the scriptural statements of the unity of all being would be unmeaning.
For if the text 'Thou art that,' be viewed as teaching the unity of the
individual soul and the highest Self, there is certainly no reason,
founded on unmeaningness, to ascribe to Brahman, intimated by the word
'that'--which is all-knowing, &c.--Nescience, which is contradictory to
Brahman's nature.--Itihāsa and Purāna also do not anywhere teach that to
Brahman there belongs Nescience.

But, an objection is raised, the Vishnu Purāna, in the sloka, 'The stars
are Vishnu,' &c. (II, 12, 38), first refers to Brahman as one only, and
comprising all things within itself; thereupon states in the next sloka
that this entire world, with all its distinctions of hills, oceans, &c.,
is sprung out of the 'ajńāna' of Brahman, which in itself is pure 'jńāna,'
i.e. knowledge; thereupon confirms the view of the world having sprung
from ajńāna by referring to the fact that Brahman, while abiding in its
own nature, is free from all difference (sl. 40); proves in the next two
slokas the non-reality of plurality by a consideration of the things of
this world; sums up, in the following sloka, the unreality of all that
is different from Brahman; then (43) explains that action is the root of
that ajńāna which causes us to view the one uniform Brahman as manifold;
thereupon declares the intelligence constituting Brahman's nature to be
free from all distinction and imperfection (44); and finally teaches
(45) that Brahman so constituted, alone is truly real, while the so-
called reality of the world is merely conventional.--This is not, we
reply, a true representation of the drift of the passage. The passage at
the outset states that, in addition to the detailed description of the
world given before, there will now be given a succinct account of
another aspect of the world not yet touched upon. This account has to be
understood as follows. Of this universe, comprising intelligent and non-
intelligent beings, the intelligent part--which is not to be reached by
mind and speech, to be known in its essential nature by the Self only,
and, owing to its purely intelligential character, not touched by the
differences due to Prakriti--is, owing to its imperishable nature,
denoted as that which is; while the non-intelligent, material; part
which, in consequence of the actions of the intelligent beings undergoes
manifold changes, and thus is perishable, is denoted as that which is
not. Both parts, however, form the body of Vāsudeva, i.e. Brahman, and
hence have Brahman for their Self. The text therefore says (37), 'From
the waters which form the body of Vishnu was produced the lotus-shaped
earth, with its seas and mountains': what is meant is that the entire
Brahma-egg which has arisen from water constitutes the body of which
Vishnu is the soul. This relation of soul and body forms the basis of
the statements of co-ordination made in the next sloka (38), 'The stars
are Vishnu,' &c.; the same relation had been already declared in
numerous previous passages of the Purāna ('all this is the body of Hari,'
&c.). All things in the world, whether they are or are not, are
Vishnu's body, and he is their soul. Of the next sloka, 'Because the
Lord has knowledge for his essential nature,' the meaning is 'Because of
the Lord who abides as the Self of all individual souls, the essential
nature is knowledge only--while bodies divine, human, &c., have no part
in it--, therefore all non-intelligent things, bodies human and divine,
hills, oceans, &c., spring from his knowledge, i.e. have their root in
the actions springing from the volitions of men, gods, &c., in whose
various forms the fundamental intelligence manifests itself. And since
non-intelligent matter is subject to changes corresponding to the
actions of the individual souls, it may be called 'non-being,' while the
souls are 'being.'--This the next sloka further explains 'when knowledge
is pure,' &c. The meaning is 'when the works which are the cause of the
distinction of things are destroyed, then all the distinctions of bodies,
human or divine, hills, oceans, &c.--all which are objects of fruition
for the different individual souls--pass away.' Non-intelligent matter,
as entering into various states of a non-permanent nature, is called
'non-being'; while souls, the nature of which consists in permanent
knowledge, are called 'being.' On this difference the next sloka insists
(41). We say 'it is' of that thing which is of a permanently uniform
nature, not connected with the idea of beginning, middle and end, and
which hence never becomes the object of the notion of non-existence;
while we say 'it is not' of non-intelligent matter which constantly
passes over into different states, each later state being out of
connexion with the earlier state. The constant changes to which non-
intelligent matter is liable are illustrated in the next sloka, 'Earth
is made into a jar,' &c. And for this reason, the subsequent sloka goes
on to say that there _is_ nothing but knowledge. This fundamental
knowledge or intelligence is, however, variously connected with manifold
individual forms of being due to karman, and hence the text adds: 'The
one intelligence is in many ways connected with beings whose minds
differ, owing to the difference of their own acts' (sl 43, second half).
Intelligence, pure, free from stain and grief, &c., which constitutes
the intelligent element of the world, and unintelligent matter--these
two together constitute the world, and the world is the body of Vāsudeva;
such is the purport of sloka 44.--The next sloka sums up the whole
doctrine; the words 'true and untrue' there denote what in the preceding
verses had been called 'being' and 'non-being'; the second half of the
sloka refers to the practical plurality of the world as due to karman.

Now all these slokas do not contain a single word supporting the
doctrine of a Brahman free from all difference; of a principle called
Nescience abiding within Brahman and to be defined neither as that which
is nor as that which is not; and of the world being wrongly imagined,
owing to Nescience. The expressions 'that which is' and 'that which is
not' (sl 35), and 'satya' (true) and 'asatya' (untrue; sl 45), can in no
way denote something not to be defined either as being or non-being. By
'that which is not' or 'which is untrue,' we have to understand not what
is undefinable, but that which has no true being, in so far as it is
changeable and perishable. Of this character is all non-intelligent
matter. This also appears from the instance adduced in sl 42: the jar is
something perishable, but not a thing devoid of proof or to be sublated
by true knowledge. 'Non-being' we may call it, in so far as while it is
observed at a certain moment in a certain form it is at some other
moment observed in a different condition. But there is no contradiction
between two different conditions of a thing which are perceived at
different times; and hence there is no reason to call it something
futile (tuchcha) or false (mithyā), &c.




Scripture does not teach that Release is due to the knowledge of a non-
qualified Brahman.--the meaning of 'tat tvam asi.'

Nor can we admit the assertion that Scripture teaches the cessation of
avidyā to spring only from the cognition of a Brahman devoid of all
difference. Such a view is clearly negatived by passages such as the
following: 'I know that great person of sun-like lustre beyond darkness;
knowing him a man becomes immortal, there is no other path to go' (Svet.
Up. III, 8); 'All moments sprang from lightning, the Person--none is
lord over him, his name is great glory--they who know him become
immortal' (Mahānā. Up. I, 8-11). For the reason that Brahman is
characterised by difference all Vedic texts declare that final release
results from the cognition of a qualified Brahman. And that even those
texts which describe Brahman by means of negations really aim at setting
forth a Brahman possessing attributes, we have already shown above.

In texts, again, such as 'Thou art that,' the co-ordination of the
constituent parts is not meant to convey the idea of the absolute unity
of a non-differenced substance: on the contrary, the words 'that' and
'thou' denote a Brahman distinguished by difference. The word 'that'
refers to Brahman omniscient, &c., which had been introduced as the
general topic of consideration in previous passages of the same section,
such as 'It thought, may I be many'; the word 'thou,' which stands in co-
ordination to 'that,' conveys the idea of Brahman in so far as having
for its body the individual souls connected with non-intelligent matter.
This is in accordance with the general principle that co-ordination is
meant to express one thing subsisting in a twofold form. If such
doubleness of form (or character) were abandoned, there could be no
difference of aspects giving rise to the application of different terms,
and the entire principle of co-ordination would thus be given up. And it
would further follow that the two words co-ordinated would have to be
taken in an implied sense (instead of their primary direct meaning). Nor
is there any need of our assuming implication (lakshanā) in sentences
[FOOTNOTE 130:1] such as 'this person is that Devadatta (known to me
from former occasions)'; for there is no contradiction in the cognition
of the oneness of a thing connected with the past on the one hand, and
the present on the other, the contradiction that arises from difference
of place being removed by the accompanying difference of time. If the
text 'Thou art that' were meant to express absolute oneness, it would,
moreover, conflict with a previous statement in the same section, viz.
'It thought, may I be many'; and, further, the promise (also made in the
same section) that by the knowledge of one thing all things are to be
known could not be considered as fulfilled. It, moreover, is not
possible (while, however, it would result from the absolute oneness of
'tat' and 'tvam') that to Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge,
which is free from all imperfections, omniscient, comprising within
itself all auspicious qualities, there should belong Nescience; and that
it should be the substrate of all those defects and afflictions which
spring from Nescience. If, further, the statement of co-ordination
('thou art that') were meant to sublate (the previously existing wrong
notion of plurality), we should have to admit that the two terms 'that'
and 'thou' have an implied meaning, viz. in so far as denoting, on the
one hand, one substrate only, and, on the other, the cessation of the
different attributes (directly expressed by the two terms); and thus
implication and the other shortcomings mentioned above would cling to
this interpretation as well. And there would be even further
difficulties. When we form the sublative judgment 'this is not silver,'
the sublation is founded on an independent positive judgment, viz. 'this
is a shell': in the case under discussion, however, the sublation would
not be known (through an independent positive judgment), but would be
assumed merely on the ground that it cannot be helped. And, further,
there is really no possibility of sublation, since the word 'that' does
not convey the idea of an attribute in addition to the mere substrate.
To this it must not be objected that the substrate was previously
concealed, and that hence it is the special function of the word 'that'
to present the substrate in its non-concealed aspect; for if, previously
to the sublative judgment, the substrate was not evident (as an object
of consciousness), there is no possibility of its becoming the object
either of an error or its sublation.--Nor can we allow you to say that,
previously to sublation, the substrate was non-concealed in so far as
(i. e. was known as) the object of error, for in its 'non-concealed'
aspect the substrate is opposed to all error, and when that aspect
shines forth there is no room either for error or sublation.--The
outcome of this is that as long as you do not admit that there is a real
attribute in addition to the mere substrate, and that this attribute is
for a time hidden, you cannot show the possibility either of error or
sublation. We add an illustrative instance. That with regard to a man
there should arise the error that he is a mere low-caste hunter is only
possible on condition of a real additional attribute--e.g. the man's
princely birth--being hidden at the time; and the cessation of that
error is brought about by the declaration of this attribute of princely
birth, not by a mere declaration of the person being a man: this latter
fact being evident need not be declared at all, and if it is declared it
sublates no error.--If, on the other hand, the text is understood to
refer to Brahman as having the individual souls for its body, both words
('that' and 'thou') keep their primary denotation; and, the text thus
making a declaration about one substance distinguished by two aspects,
the fundamental principle of 'co-ordination' is preserved, On this
interpretation the text further intimates that Brahman--free from all
imperfection and comprising within itself all auspicious qualities--is
the internal ruler of the individual souls and possesses lordly power.
It moreover satisfies the demand of agreement with the teaching of the
previous part of the section, and it also fulfils the promise as to all
things being known through one thing, viz. in so far as Brahman having
for its body all intelligent and non-intelligent beings in their gross
state is the effect of Brahman having for its body the same things in
their subtle state. And this interpretation finally avoids all conflict
with other scriptural passages, such as 'Him the great Lord, the highest
of Lords' (Svet. Up. VI, 7); 'His high power is revealed as manifold'
(ibid. VI, 8); 'He that is free from sin, whose wishes are true, whose
purposes are true' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1), and so on.

But how, a question may be asked, can we decide, on your interpretation
of the text, which of the two terms is meant to make an original
assertion with regard to the other?--The question does not arise, we
reply; for the text does not mean to make an original assertion at all,
the truth which it states having already been established by the
preceding clause, 'In that all this world has its Self.' This clause
does make an original statement--in agreement with the principle that
'Scripture has a purport with regard to what is not established by other
means'--that is, it predicates of 'all this,' i.e. this entire world
together with all individual souls, that 'that,' i.e. Brahman is the
Self of it. The reason of this the text states in a previous passage,
'All these creatures have their root in that which is, their dwelling
and their rest in that which is'; a statement which is illustrated by an
earlier one (belonging to a different section), viz. 'All this is
Brahman; let a man meditate with calm mind on this world as beginning,
ending, and breathing in Brahman' (Ch. Up. III. 14, 1). Similarly other
texts also teach that the world has its Self in Brahman, in so far as
the whole aggregate of intelligent and non-intelligent beings
constitutes Brahman's body. Compare 'Abiding within, the ruler of beings,
the Self of all'; 'He who dwells in the earth, different from the earth,
whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who rules the
earth within--he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal. He who
dwells in the Self,'&c. (Bri. Up. III, 7,3; 22); 'He who moving within
the earth, and so on--whose body is death, whom death does not know, he
is the Self of all beings, free from sin, divine, the one God, Nårāyana'
(Subāl. Up. VII, 1); 'Having created that he entered into it; having
entered it he became sat and tyat' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). And also in the
section under discussion the passage 'Having entered into them with this
living Self let me evolve names and forms,' shows that it is only
through the entering into them of the living soul whose Self is Brahman,
that all things possess their substantiality and their connexion with
the words denoting them. And as this passage must be understood in
connexion with Taitt. Up. II, 6 (where the 'sat' denotes the individual
soul) it follows that the individual soul also has Brahman for its Self,
owing to the fact of Brahman having entered into it.--From all this it
follows that the entire aggregate of things, intelligent and non-
intelligent, has its Self in Brahman in so far as it constitutes
Brahman's body. And as, thus, the whole world different from Brahman
derives its substantial being only from constituting Brahman's body, any
term denoting the world or something in it conveys a meaning which has
its proper consummation in Brahman only: in other words all terms
whatsoever denote Brahman in so far as distinguished by the different
things which we associate with those terms on the basis of ordinary use
of speech and etymology.--The text 'that art thou' we therefore
understand merely as a special expression of the truth already
propounded in the clause 'in that all this has its Self.'

This being so, it appears that those as well who hold the theory of the
absolute unity of one non-differenced substance, as those who teach the
doctrine of bhedābheda (co-existing difference and non-difference), and
those who teach the absolute difference of several substances, give up
all those scriptural texts which teach that Brahman is the universal
Self. With regard to the first-mentioned doctrine, we ask 'if there is
only one substance; to what can the doctrine of universal identity
refer?'--The reply will perhaps be 'to that very same substance.'--But,
we reply, this point is settled already by the texts defining the nature
of Brahman [FOOTNOTE 134:1], and there is nothing left to be determined
by the passages declaring the identity of everything with Brahman.--But
those texts serve to dispel the idea of fictitious difference!--This, we
reply, cannot, as has been shown above, be effected by texts stating
universal identity in the way of co-ordination; and statements of co-
ordination, moreover, introduce into Brahman a doubleness of aspect, and
thus contradict the theory of absolute oneness.--The bhedābheda view
implies that owing to Brahman's connexion with limiting adjuncts
(upādhi) all the imperfections resulting therefrom--and which avowedly
belong to the individual soul--would manifest themselves in Brahman
itself; and as this contradicts the doctrine that the Self of all is
constituted by a Brahman free from all imperfection and comprising
within itself all auspicious qualities, the texts conveying that
doctrine would have to be disregarded. If, on the other hand, the theory
be held in that form that 'bhedābheda' belongs to Brahman by its own
nature (not only owing to an upādhi), the view that Brahman by its
essential nature appears as individual soul, implies that imperfections
no less than perfections are essential to Brahman, and this is in
conflict with the texts teaching that everything is identical with
Brahman free from all imperfections.--For those finally who maintain
absolute difference, the doctrine of Brahman being the Self of all has
no meaning whatsoever--for things absolutely different can in no way be
one--and this implies the abandonment of all Vedānta-texts together.

Those, on the other hand, who take their stand on the doctrine,
proclaimed by all Upanishads, that the entire world forms the body of
Brahman, may accept in their fulness all the texts teaching the identity
of the world with Brahman. For as genus (jāti) and quality (guna), so
substances (dravya) also may occupy the position of determining
attributes (viseshana), in so far namely as they constitute the body of
something else. Enunciations such as 'the Self (soul) is, according to
its works, born either (as) a god, or a man, or a horse, or a bull,'
show that in ordinary speech as well as in the Veda co-ordination has to
be taken in a real primary (not implied) sense. In the same way it is
also in the case of generic character and of qualities the relation of
'mode' only (in which generic character and qualities stand to
substances) which determines statements of co-ordination, such as 'the
ox is broken-horned,' 'the cloth is white.' And as material bodies
bearing the generic marks of humanity are definite things, in so far
only as they are modes of a Self or soul, enunciations of co-ordination
such as 'the soul has been born as a man, or a eunuch, or a woman,' are
in every way appropriate. What determines statements of co-ordination is
thus only the relation of 'mode' in which one thing stands to another,
not the relation of generic character, quality, and so on, which are of
an exclusive nature (and cannot therefore be exhibited in co-ordination
with substances). Such words indeed as denote substances capable of
subsisting by themselves occasionally take suffixes, indicating that
those substances form the distinguishing attributes of other substances--
as when from danda, 'staff,' we form dandin, 'staff-bearer'; in the case,
on the other hand, of substances not capable of subsisting and being
apprehended apart from others, the fact of their holding the position of
attributes is ascertained only from their appearing in grammatical co-
ordination.--But, an objection is raised, if it is supposed that in
sentences such as 'the Self is born, as god, man, animal,' &c., the body
of a man, god, &c., stands towards the Self in the relation of a mode,
in the same way as in sentences such as 'the ox is broken-horned,' 'the
cloth is white,' the generic characteristic and the quality stand in the
relation of modes to the substances ('cow,' 'cloth') to which they are
grammatically co-ordinated; then there would necessarily be simultaneous
cognition of the mode, and that to which the mode belongs, i.e. of the
body and the Self; just as there is simultaneous cognition of the
generic character and the individual. But as a matter of fact this is
not the case; we do not necessarily observe a human, divine, or animal
body together with the Self. The co-ordination expressed in the form
'the Self is a man,' is therefore an 'implied' one only (the statement
not admitting of being taken in its primary literal sense).--This is not
so, we reply. The relation of bodies to the Self is strictly analogous
to that of class characteristics and qualities to the substances in
which they inhere; for it is the Self only which is their substrate and
their final cause (prayojana), and they are modes of the Self. That the
Self only is their substrate, appears from the fact that when the Self
separates itself from the body the latter perishes; that the Self alone
is their final cause, appears from the fact that they exist to the end
that the fruits of the actions of the Self may be enjoyed; and that they
are modes of the Self, appears from the fact that they are mere
attributes of the Self manifesting itself as god, man, or the like.
These are just the circumstances on account of which words like 'cow'
extend in their meaning (beyond the class characteristics) so as to
comprise the individual also. Where those circumstances are absent, as
in the case of staffs, earrings, and the like, the attributive position
is expressed (not by co-ordination but) by means of special derivative
forms--such as dandin (staff-bearer), kundalin (adorned with earrings).
In the case of bodies divine, human, &c., on the other hand, the
essential nature of which it is to be mere modes of the Self which
constitutes their substrate and final cause, both ordinary and Vedic
language express the relation subsisting between the two, in the form of
co-ordination, 'This Self is a god, or a man,' &c. That class
characteristics and individuals are invariably observed together, is due
to the fact of both being objects of visual perception; the Self, on the
other hand, is not such, and hence is not apprehended by the eye, while
the body is so apprehended. Nor must you raise the objection that it is
hard to understand how that which is capable of being apprehended by
itself can be a mere mode of something else: for that the body's
essential nature actually consists in being a mere mode of the Self is
proved--just as in the case of class characteristics and so on--by its
having the Self only for its substrate and final cause, and standing to
it in the relation of a distinguishing attribute. That two things are
invariably perceived together, depends, as already observed, on their
being apprehended by means of the same apparatus, visual or otherwise.
Earth is naturally connected with smell, taste, and so on, and yet these
qualities are not perceived by the eye; in the same way the eye which
perceives the body does not perceive that essential characteristic of
the body which consists in its being a mere mode of the Self; the reason
of the difference being that the eye has no capacity to apprehend the
Self. But this does not imply that the body does not possess that
essential nature: it rather is just the possession of that essential
nature on which the judgment of co-ordination ('the Self is a man, god,'
&c.) is based. And as words have the power of denoting the relation of
something being a mode of the Self, they denote things together with
this relation.--But in ordinary speech the word 'body' is understood to
mean the mere body; it does not therefore extend in its denotation up to
the Self!--Not so, we reply. The body is, in reality, nothing but a mode
of the Self; but, for the purpose of showing the distinction of things,
the word 'body' is used in a limited sense. Analogously words such as
'whiteness,' 'generic character of a cow,' 'species,''quality,' are used
in a distinctive sense (although 'whiteness' is not found apart from a
white thing, of which it is the prakāra, and so on). Words such as
'god,' 'man,' &c., therefore do extend in their connotation up to the
Self. And as the individual souls, distinguished by their connexion with
aggregates of matter bearing the characteristic marks of humanity,
divine nature, and so on, constitute the body of the highest Self, and
hence are modes of it, the words denoting those individual souls extend
in their connotation up to the very highest Self. And as all intelligent
and non-intelligent beings are thus mere modes of the highest Brahman,
and have reality thereby only, the words denoting them are used in co-
ordination with the terms denoting Brahman.--This point has been
demonstrated by me in the Vedārthasamgraha. A Sūtra also (IV, 1, 3) will
declare the identity of the world and Brahman to consist in the relation
of body and Self; and the Vākyakāra too says 'It is the Self--thus
everything should be apprehended.'

[FOOTNOTE 130:1. Which are alleged to prove that sāmānādhikaranya is to
be explained on the basis of lakshanā.]

[FOOTNOTE 134:1. Such as 'The True, knowledge,' &c.]




Summary statement as to the way in which different scriptural texts are
to reconciled.

The whole matter may be summarily stated as follows. Some texts declare
a distinction of nature between non-intelligent matter, intelligent
beings, and Brahman, in so far as matter is the object of enjoyment, the
souls the enjoying subjects, and Brahman the ruling principle. 'From
that the Lord of Māyā creates all this; in that the other one is bound
up through that Māyā' (Svet. Up. IV, 9); 'Know Prakriti to be Māyā, and
the great Lord the ruler of Māyā' (10); 'What is perishable is the
Pradhāna, the immortal and imperishable is Hara: the one God rules the
Perishable and the Self' (Svet Up. I, 10)--In this last passage the
clause 'the immortal and imperishable is Hara,' refers to the enjoying
individual soul, which is called 'Hara,' because it draws (harati)
towards itself the pradhāna as the object of its enjoyment.--' He is the
cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him neither
parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'The master of the pradhāna and of
the individual souls' (Svet. Up. VI, 16); 'The ruler of all, the lord of
the Selfs, the eternal, blessed, undecaying one' (Mahānār. Up. XI, 3);
'There are two unborn ones, one knowing, the other not knowing, one a
ruler, the other not a ruler' (Svet. Up. 1, 9); 'The eternal among the
non-eternal, the intelligent one among the intelligent, who though one
fulfils the desires of many' (Svet. Up. VI, 13); 'Knowing the enjoyer,
the object of enjoyment and the Mover' (Svet. Up. I, 12); 'One of them
eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Svet. Up. IV,
6); 'Thinking that the Self is different from the Mover, blessed by him
he reaches Immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6); 'There is one unborn female
being, red, white, and black, uniform but producing manifold offspring.
There is one unborn male being who loves her and lies by her; there is
another who leaves her after he has enjoyed her' (Svet. Up. IV, 5). 'On
the same tree man, immersed, bewildered, grieves on account of his
impotence; but when he sees the other Lord contented and knows his glory,
then his grief passes away' (Svet. Up. IV, 9).--Smriti expresses itself
similarly.--'Thus eightfold is my nature divided. Lower is this Nature;
other than this and higher know that Nature of mine which constitutes
the individual soul, by which this world is supported' (Bha. Gģ. VII, 4,
5). 'All beings at the end of a Kalpa return into my Nature, and again
at the beginning of a Kalpa do I send them forth. Resting on my own
Nature again and again do I send forth this entire body of beings, which
has no power of its own, being subject to the power of nature' (Bha. Gī.
IX, 7, 8); 'With me as supervisor Nature brings forth the movable and
the immovable, and for this reason the world ever moves round' (Bha. Gī.
IX, 10); 'Know thou both Nature and the Soul to be without beginning'
(XIII, 19); 'The great Brahman is my womb, in which I place the embryo,
and thence there is the origin of all beings' (XIV, 3). This last
passage means--the womb of the world is the great Brahman, i.e. non-
intelligent matter in its subtle state, commonly called Prakriti; with
this I connect the embryo, i.e. the intelligent principle. From this
contact of the non-intelligent and the intelligent, due to my will,
there ensues the origination of all beings from gods down to lifeless
things.

Non-intelligent matter and intelligent beings--holding the relative
positions of objects of enjoyment and enjoying subjects, and appearing
in multifarious forms--other scriptural texts declare to be permanently
connected with the highest Person in so far as they constitute his body,
and thus are controlled by him; the highest Person thus constituting
their Self. Compare the following passages: 'He who dwells in the earth
and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth
is, and who rules the earth within, he is thy Self, the ruler within,
the immortal,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 3-23); 'He who moves within the
earth, whose body the earth is, &c.; he who moves within death, whose
body death is,' &c.(Subāla Up. VII, 1). In this latter passage the word
'death' denotes what is also called 'darkness,' viz. non-intelligent
matter in its subtle state; as appears from another passage in the same
Upanishad,'the Imperishable is merged in darkness.' And compare also
'Entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ār.
III, 24).

Other texts, again, aim at teaching that the highest Self to whom non-
intelligent and intelligent beings stand in the relation of body, and
hence of modes, subsists in the form of the world, in its causal as well
as in its effected aspect, and hence speak of the world in this its
double aspect as that which is (the Real); so e.g. 'Being only this was
in the beginning, one only without a second--it desired, may I be many,
may I grow forth--it sent forth fire,' &c., up to 'all these creatures
have their root in that which is,' &c., up to 'that art thou, O
Svetaketu' (Ch. Up. VI, 2-8); 'He wished, may I be many,' &c., up to 'it
became the true and the untrue' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). These sections also
refer to the essential distinction of nature between non-intelligent
matter, intelligent beings, and the highest Self which is established by
other scriptural texts; so in the Chāndogya passage, 'Let me enter those
three divine beings with this living Self, and let me then evolve names
and forms'; and in the Taitt. passage, 'Having sent forth that he
entered into it; having entered it he became sat and tyat, knowledge and
(what is) without knowledge, the true and the untrue,' &c. These two
passages evidently have the same purport, and hence the soul's having
its Self in Brahman--which view is implied in the Ch. passage--must be
understood as resting thereon that the souls (together, with matter)
constitute the body of Brahman as asserted in the Taitt. passage ('it
became knowledge and that which is without knowledge,' i.e. souls and
matter). The same process of evolution of names and forms is described
elsewhere also, 'All this was then unevolved; it became evolved by form
and name' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7). The fact is that the highest Self is in
its causal or in its 'effected' condition, according as it has for its
body intelligent and non-intelligent beings either in their subtle or
their gross state; the effect, then, being non-different from the cause,
and hence being cognised through the cognition of the cause, the result
is that the desired 'cognition of all things through one' can on our
view be well established. In the clause 'I will enter into these three
divine beings with this living Self,' &c., the term 'the three divine
beings' denotes the entire aggregate of non-sentient matter, and as the
text declares that the highest Self evolved names and forms by entering
into matter by means of the living souls of which he is the Self, it
follows that all terms whatsoever denote the highest Self as qualified
by individual Selfs, the latter again being qualified by non-sentient
matter. A term which denotes the highest Self in its causal condition
may therefore be exhibited in co-ordination with another term denoting
the highest Self in its 'effected' state, both terms being used in their
primary senses. Brahman, having for its modes intelligent and non-
intelligent things in their gross and subtle states, thus constitutes
effect and cause, and the world thus has Brahman for its material cause
(upādāna). Nor does this give rise to any confusion of the essential
constituent elements of the great aggregate of things. Of some parti-
coloured piece of cloth the material cause is threads white, red, black,
&c.; all the same, each definite spot of the cloth is connected with one
colour only white e.g., and thus there is no confusion of colours even
in the 'effected' condition of the cloth. Analogously the combination of
non-sentient matter, sentient beings, and the Lord constitutes the
material cause of the world, but this does not imply any confusion of
the essential characteristics of enjoying souls, objects of enjoyment,
and the universal ruler, even in the world's 'effected' state. There is
indeed a difference between the two cases, in so far as the threads are
capable of existing apart from one another, and are only occasionally
combined according to the volition of men, so that the web sometimes
exists in its causal, sometimes in its effected state; while non-
sentient matter and sentient beings in all their states form the body of
the highest Self, and thus have a being only as the modes of that--on
which account the highest Self may, in all cases, be denoted by any term
whatsoever. But the two cases are analogous, in so far as there persists
a distinction and absence of all confusion, on the part of the
constituent elements of the aggregate. This being thus, it follows that
the highest Brahman, although entering into the 'effected' condition,
remains unchanged--for its essential nature does not become different--
and we also understand what constitutes its 'effected' condition, viz.
its abiding as the Self of non-intelligent and intelligent beings in
their gross condition, distinguished by name and form. For becoming an
effect means entering into another state of being.

Those texts, again, which speak of Brahman as devoid of qualities,
explain themselves on the ground of Brahman being free from all touch of
evil. For the passage, Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5--which at first negatives all
evil qualities 'free from sin, from old age, from death, from grief,
from hunger and thirst', and after that affirms auspicious qualities
'whose wishes and purposes come true'--enables us to decide that in
other places also the general denial of qualities really refers to evil
qualities only.--Passages which declare knowledge to constitute the
essential nature of Brahman explain themselves on the ground that of
Brahman--which is all-knowing, all-powerful, antagonistic to all evil, a
mass of auspicious qualities--the essential nature can be defined as
knowledge (intelligence) only--which also follows from the 'self-
luminousness' predicated of it. Texts, on the other hand, such as 'He
who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'His high power is revealed as
manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet. Up. VI, 8);
'Whereby should he know the knower' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14), teach the
highest Self to be a knowing subject. Other texts, again, such as 'The
True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1), declare
knowledge to constitute its nature, as it can be denned through
knowledge only, and is self-luminous. And texts such as 'He desired, may
I be many' (Taitt. Up. II, 6); 'It thought, may I be many; it evolved
itself through name and form' (Ch. Up. VI, 2), teach that Brahman,
through its mere wish, appears in manifold modes. Other texts, again,
negative the opposite view, viz. that there is a plurality of things not
having their Self in Brahman. 'From death to death goes he who sees here
any plurality'; 'There is here not any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19);
'For where there is duality as it were' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 14). But these
texts in no way negative that plurality of modes--declared in passages
such as 'May I be many, may I grow forth'--which springs from Brahman's
will, and appears in the distinction of names and forms. This is proved
by clauses in those 'negativing' texts themselves, 'Whosoever looks for
anything elsewhere than in the Self', 'from that great Being there has
been breathed forth the Rig-veda,' &c. (Bri. Up. II, 4, 6, 10).--On
this method of interpretation we find that the texts declaring the
essential distinction and separation of non-sentient matter, sentient
beings, and the Lord, and those declaring him to be the cause and the
world to be the effect, and cause and effect to be identical, do not in
any way conflict with other texts declaring that matter and souls form
the body of the Lord, and that matter and souls in their causal
condition are in a subtle state, not admitting of the distinction of
names and forms while in their 'effected' gross state they are subject
to that distinction. On the other hand, we do not see how there is any
opening for theories maintaining the connexion of Brahman with Nescience,
or distinctions in Brahman due to limiting adjuncts (upādhi)--such and
similar doctrines rest on fallacious reasoning, and flatly contradict
Scripture.

There is nothing contradictory in allowing that certain texts declare
the essential distinction of matter, souls, and the Lord, and their
mutual relation as modes and that to which the modes belong, and that
other texts again represent them as standing in the relation of cause
and effect, and teach cause and effect to be one. We may illustrate this
by an analogous case from the Karmakānda. There six separate oblations
to Agni, and so on, are enjoined by separate so-called originative
injunctions; these are thereupon combined into two groups (viz. the new
moon and the full-moon sacrifices) by a double clause referring to those
groups, and finally a so-called injunction of qualification enjoins the
entire sacrifice as something to be performed by persons entertaining a
certain wish. In a similar way certain Vedānta-texts give instruction
about matter, souls, and the Lord as separate entities ('Perishable is
the pradhāna, imperishable and immortal Hara,' &c., Svet Up. I, 10; and
others); then other texts teach that matter and souls in all their
different states constitute the body of the highest Person, while the
latter is their Self ('Whose body the earth is,' &c.); and finally
another group of texts teaches--by means of words such as 'Being,'
'Brahman,' 'Self,' denoting the highest Self to which the body belongs--
that the one highest Self in its causal and effected states comprises
within itself the triad of entities which had been taught in separation
('Being only this was in the beginning'; 'In that all this has its Self;
'All this is Brahman').--That the highest Self with matter and souls for
its body should be simply called the highest Self, is no more
objectionable than that that particular form of Self which is invested
with a human body should simply be spoken of as Self or soul--as when we
say 'This is a happy soul.'




Nescience cannot be terminated by the simple act of cognising Brahman as
the universal self.

The doctrine, again, that Nescience is put an end to by the cognition of
Brahman being the Self of all can in no way be upheld; for as bondage is
something real it cannot be put an end to by knowledge. How, we ask, can
any one assert that bondage--which consists in the experience of
pleasure and pain caused by the connexion of souls with bodies of
various kind, a connexion springing from good or evil actions--is
something false, unreal? And that the cessation of such bondage is to be
obtained only through the grace of the highest Self pleased by the
devout meditation of the worshipper, we have already explained. As the
cognition of universal oneness which you assume rests on a view of
things directly contrary to reality, and therefore is false, the only
effect it can have is to strengthen the ties of bondage. Moreover, texts
such as 'But different is the highest Person' (Bha. Gī. XV, 17), and
'Having known the Self and the Mover as separate' (Svet. Up. I, 6),
teach that it is the cognition of Brahman as the inward ruler different
from the individual soul, that effects the highest aim of man, i.e.
final release. And, further, as that 'bondage-terminating' knowledge
which you assume is itself unreal, we should have to look out for
another act of cognition to put an end to it.--But may it not be said
that this terminating cognition, after having put an end to the whole
aggregate of distinctions antagonistic to it, immediately passes away
itself, because being of a merely instantaneous nature?--No, we reply.
Since its nature, its origination, and its destruction are all alike
fictitious, we have clearly to search for another agency capable of
destroying that avidyā which is the cause of the fiction of its
destruction!--Let us then say that the essential nature of Brahman
itself is the destruction of that cognition!--From this it would follow,
we reply, that such 'terminating' knowledge would not arise at all; for
that the destruction of what is something permanent can clearly not
originate!--Who moreover should, according to you, be the cognising
subject in a cognition which has for its object the negation of
everything that is different from Brahman?--That cognising subject is
himself something fictitiously superimposed on Brahman!--This may not be,
we reply: he himself would in that case be something to be negatived,
and hence an object of the 'terminating' cognition; he could not
therefore be the subject of cognition!--Well, then, let us assume that
the essential nature of Brahman itself is the cognising subject!--Do you
mean, we ask in reply, that Brahman's being the knowing subject in that
'terminating' cognition belongs to Brahman's essential nature, or that
it is something fictitiously superimposed on Brahman? In the latter case
that superimposition and the Nescience founded on it would persist,
because they would not be objects of the terminating cognition, and if a
further terminating act of knowledge were assumed, that also would
possess a triple aspect (viz. knowledge, object known, and subject
knowing), and we thus should be led to assume an infinite series of
knowing subjects. If, on the other band, the essential nature of Brahman
itself constitutes the knowing subject, your view really coincides with
the one held by us. [FOOTNOTE 146:1] And if you should say that the
terminating knowledge itself and the knowing subject in it are things
separate from Brahman and themselves contained in the sphere of what is
to be terminated by that knowledge, your statement would be no less
absurd than if you were to say 'everything on the surface of the earth
has been cut down by Devadatta with one stroke'--meaning thereby that
Devadatta himself and the action of cutting down are comprised among the
things cut down!--The second alternative, on the other hand--according
to which the knowing subject is not Brahman itself, but a knower
superimposed upon it--would imply that that subject is the agent in an
act of knowledge resulting in his own destruction; and this is
impossible since no person aims at destroying himself. And should it be
said that the destruction of the knowing agent belongs to the very
nature of Brahman itself [FOOTNOTE 147:1], it would follow that we can
assume neither plurality nor the erroneous view of plurality, nor avidyā
as the root of that erroneous view.--All this confirms our theory, viz.
that since bondage springs from ajnāna in the form of an eternal stream
of karman, it can be destroyed only through knowledge of the kind
maintained by us. Such knowledge is to be attained only through the due
daily performance of religious duties as prescribed for a man's caste
and āsrama, such performance being sanctified by the accompanying
thought of the true nature of the Self, and having the character of
propitiation of the highest Person. Now, that mere works produce limited
and non-permanent results only, and that on the other hand works not
aiming at an immediate result but meant to please the highest Person,
bring about knowledge of the character of devout meditation, and thereby
the unlimited and permanent result of the intuition of Brahman being the
Self of all--these are points not to be known without an insight into
the nature of works, and hence, without this, the attitude described--
which is preceded by the abandonment of mere works--cannot be reached.
For these reasons the enquiry into Brahman has to be entered upon _after_
the enquiry into the nature of works.

[FOOTNOTE 146:1. According to which Brahman is not jńānam, but jńātri.]

[FOOTNOTE 147:1. And, on that account, belongs to what constitutes man's
highest aim.]




The Vedāntin aiming to ascertain the nature of Brahman from Scripture,
need not be disconcerted by the Mīmāmsā-theory of all speech having
informing power with regard to actions only.

Here another primā facie view [FOOTNOTE 148:1] finally presents itself.
The power of words to denote things cannot be ascertained in any way but
by observing the speech and actions of experienced people. Now as such
speech and action always implies the idea of something to be done
(kārya), words are means of knowledge only with reference to things to
be done; and hence the matter inculcated by the Veda also is only things
to be done. From this it follows that the Vedānta-texts cannot claim the
position of authoritative means of knowledge with regard to Brahman,
which is (not a thing to be done but) an accomplished fact.--Against
this view it must not be urged that in the case of sentences expressive
of accomplished facts--as e.g. that a son is born to somebody--the idea
of a particular thing may with certainty be inferred as the cause of
certain outward signs--such as e.g. a pleased expression of countenance--
which are generally due to the attainment of a desired object; for the
possible causes of joy, past, present, and future, are infinite in
number, and in the given case other causes of joy, as e.g. the birth
having taken place in an auspicious moment, or having been an easy one,
&c., may easily be imagined. Nor, again, can it be maintained that the
denotative power of words with regard to accomplished things may be
ascertained in the way of our inferring either the meaning of one word
from the known meaning of other words, or the meaning of the radical
part of a word from the known meaning of a formative element; for the
fact is that we are only able to infer on the basis of a group of words
known to denote a certain thing to be done, what the meaning of some
particular constituent of that group may be.--Nor, again, when a person,
afraid of what he thinks to be a snake, is observed to dismiss his fear
on being told that the thing is not a snake but only a rope, can we
determine thereby that what terminates his fear is the idea of the non-
existence of a snake. For there are many other ideas which may account
for the cessation of his fear--he may think, e.g., 'this is a thing
incapable of moving, devoid of poison, without consciousness'--the
particular idea present to his mind we are therefore not able to
determine.--The truth is that from the fact of all activity being
invariably dependent on the idea of something to be done, we learn that
the meaning which words convey is something prompting activity. All
words thus denoting something to be done, the several words of a
sentence express only some particular action to be performed, and hence
it is not possible to determine that they possess the power of denoting
their own meaning only, in connexion with the meaning of the other words
of the sentence.--(Nor must it be said that what moves to action is not
the idea of the thing to be done, but the idea of the means to do it;
for) the idea of the means to bring about the desired end causes action
only through the idea of the thing to be done, not through itself; as is
evident from the fact that the idea of means past, future, and even
present (when divorced from the idea of an end to be accomplished), does
not prompt to action. As long as a man does not reflect 'the means
towards the desired end are not to be accomplished without an effort of
mine; it must therefore be accomplished through my activity'; so long he
does not begin to act. What causes activity is thus only the idea of
things to be done; and as hence words denote such things only, the Veda
also can tell us only about things to be done, and is not therefore in a
position to give information about the attainment of an infinite and
permanent result, such result being constituted by Brahman, which is
(not a thing to be done, but) an accomplished entity. The Veda does, on
the other hand, actually teach that mere works have a permanent result
('Imperishable is the merit of him who offers the kāturmāsya-sacrifices,'
and so on); and hence it follows that to enter on an enquiry into
Brahman for the reason that the knowledge of Brahman has an infinite and
permanent result, while the result of works is limited and non-permanent,
is an altogether unjustified proceeding.

To this we make the following reply.--To set aside the universally known
mode of ascertaining the connexion of words and their meanings, and to
assert that all words express only one non-worldly meaning (viz. those
things to be done which the Veda inculcates), is a proceeding for which
men paying due attention to the means of proof can have only a slight
regard. A child avowedly learns the connexion of words and meanings in
the following way. The father and mother and other people about him
point with the finger at the child's mother, father, uncle, &c, as well
as at various domestic and wild animals, birds, snakes, and so on, to
the end that the child may at the same time pay attention to the terms
they use and to the beings denoted thereby, and thus again and again
make him understand that such and such words refer to such and such
things. The child thus observing in course of time that these words of
themselves give rise to certain ideas in his mind, and at the same time
observing neither any different connexion of words and things, nor any
person arbitrarily establishing such connexion, comes to the conclusion
that the application of such and such words to such and such things is
based on the denotative power of the words. And being taught later on by
his elders that other words also, in addition to those learned first,
have their definite meaning, he in the end becomes acquainted with the
meanings of all words, and freely forms sentences conveying certain
meanings for the purpose of imparting those meanings to other persons.

And there is another way also in which the connexion of words and things
can easily be ascertained. Some person orders another, by means of some
expressive gesture, to go and inform Devadatta that his father is doing
well, and the man ordered goes and tells Devadatta 'Your father is doing
well.' A by-stander who is acquainted with the meaning of various
gestures, and thus knows on what errand the messenger is sent, follows
him and hears the words employed by him to deliver his message: he
therefore readily infers that such and such words have such and such a
meaning.--We thus see that the theory of words having a meaning only in
relation to things to be done is baseless. The Vedānta-texts tell us
about Brahman, which is an accomplished entity, and about meditation on
Brahman as having an unlimited result, and hence it behoves us to
undertake an enquiry into Brahman so as fully to ascertain its nature.

We further maintain that even on the supposition of the Veda relating
only to things to be done, an enquiry into Brahman must be undertaken.
For 'The Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected on, to be
meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5); 'He is to be searched out, him we
must try to understand' (Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Let a Brāhmana having
known him practise wisdom' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21); 'What is within that
small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1,1); 'What is in that small ether, that is to be meditated upon'
(Mahānār. Up. X, 7)--these and similar texts enjoin a certain action,
viz. meditation on Brahman, and when we then read 'He who knows Brahman
attains the highest,' we understand that the attainment of Brahman is
meant as a reward for him who is qualified for and enters on such
meditation. Brahman itself and its attributes are thus established
thereby only--that they subserve a certain action, viz. meditation.
There are analogous instances in the Karmakānda of the Veda. When an
arthavāda-passage describes the heavenly vorld as a place where there is
no heat, no frost, no grief, &c., this is done merely with a view to
those texts which enjoin certain sacrifices on those who are desirous of
the heavenly world. Where another arthavāda says that 'those who perform
certain sattra-sacrifices are firmly established,' such 'firm
establishment' is referred to only because it is meant as the reward for
those acting on the text which enjoins those sattras, 'Let him perform
the rātri-sattras' (Pū. Mī. Sū. IV, 3, 17). And where a text says that a
person threatening a Brāhmana is to be punished with a fine of one
hundred gold pieces, this statement is made merely with reference to the
prohibitory passage, 'Let him not threaten a Brāhmana'(Pū. Mī. Sū. III,
4, 17).

We, however, really object to the whole theory of the meaning of words
depending on their connexion with 'things to be done,' since this is not
even the case in imperative clauses such as 'bring the cow.' For you are
quite unable to give a satisfactory definition of your 'thing to be done
'(kārya). You understand by 'kārya' that which follows on the existence
of action (kriti) and is aimed at by action. Now to be aimed at by
action is to be the object (karman) of action, and to be the object of
action is to be that which it is most desired to obtain by action
(according to the grammarian's definition). But what one desires most to
obtain is pleasure or the cessation of pain. When a person desirous of
some pleasure or cessation of pain is aware that his object is not to be
accomplished without effort on his part, he resolves on effort and
begins to act: in no case we observe an object of desire to be aimed at
by action in any other sense than that of its accomplishment depending
on activity. The prompting quality (prerakatva) also, which belongs to
objects of desire, is nothing but the attribute of their accomplishment
depending on activity; for it is this which moves to action.--Nor can it
be said that 'to be aimed at by action' means to be that which is
'agreeable' (anukūla) to man; for it is pleasure only that is agreeable
to man. The cessation of pain, on the other hand, is not what is
'agreeable' to man. The essential distinction between pleasure and pain
is that the former is agreeable to man, and the latter disagreeable
(pratikūla), and the cessation of pain is desired not because it is
agreeable, but because pain is disagreeable: absence of pain means that
a person is in his normal condition, affected neither with pain nor
pleasure. Apart from pleasure, action cannot possibly be agreeable, nor
does it become so by being subservient to pleasure; for its essential
nature is pain. Its being helpful to pleasure merely causes the resolve
of undertaking it.--Nor, again, can we define that which is aimed at by
action as that to which action is auxiliary or supplementary (sesha),
while itself it holds the position of something principal to be
subserved by other things (seshin); for of the sesha and seshin also no
proper definition can be given. It cannot be said that a sesha is that
which is invariably accompanied by an activity proceeding with a view to
something else, and that the correlate of such a sesha is the seshin;
for on this definition the action is not a sesha, and hence that which
is to be effected by the action cannot be the correlative seshin. And
moreover a seshin may not be defined as what is correlative to an action
proceeding with a view to--i. e. aiming at--something else; for it is
just this 'being aimed at' of which we require a definition, and
moreover we observe that also the seshin (or 'pradhāna') is capable of
action proceeding with a view to the sesha, as when e.g. a master does
something for--let us say, keeps or feeds--his servant. This last
criticism you must not attempt to ward off by maintaining that the
master in keeping his servant acts with a view to himself (to his own
advantage); for the servant in serving the master likewise acts with a
view to himself.--And as, further, we have no adequate definition of
'kārya,' it would be inappropriate to define sesha as that which is
correlative to kārya, and seshin as that which is correlative to sesha.--
Nor, finally, may we define 'that which is aimed at by action' as that
which is the final end (prayojana) of action; for by the final end of an
action we could only understand the end for which the agent undertakes
the action, and this end is no other than the desired object. As thus
'what is aimed at by action' cannot be defined otherwise than what is
desired, kārya cannot be defined as what is to be effected by action and
stands to action in the relation of principal matter (pradhāna or
seshin).

(Let it then be said that the 'niyoga,' i.e. what is commonly called the
apūrva--the supersensuous result of an action which later on produces
the sensible result--constitutes the prayojana--the final purpose--of
the action.--But) the apūrva also can, as it is something different from
the direct objects of desire, viz. pleasure and the cessation of pain,
be viewed only as a means of bringing about these direct objects, and as
something itself to be effected by the action; it is for this very
reason that it is something different from the action, otherwise the
action itself would be that which is effected by the action. The thing
to be effected by the action-which is expressed by means of optative and
imperative verbal forms such as yajeta, 'let him sacrifice'--is, in
accordance with the fact of its being connected with words such as
svargakāmah, 'he who is desirous of heaven', understood to be the means
of bringing about (the enjoyment of) the heavenly world; and as the
(sacrificial) action itself is transitory, there is assumed an
altogether 'new' or 'unprecedented' (apūrva) effect of it which (later
on) is to bring about the enjoyment of heaven. This so-called 'apūrva'
can therefore be understood only with regard to its capability of
bringing about the heavenly world. Now it certainly is ludicrous to
assert that the apūrva, which is assumed to the end of firmly
establishing the independent character of the effect of the action first
recognised as such (i.e. independent), later on becomes the means of
realising the heavenly world; for as the word expressing the result of
the action (yajta) appears in syntactical connexion with 'svargakāmah'
(desirous of heaven), it does not, from the very beginning, denote an
independent object of action, and moreover it is impossible to recognise
an independent result of action other than either pleasure or cessation
of pain, or the means to bring about these two results.--What, moreover,
do you understand by the apūrva being a final end (prayojana)?-You will
perhaps reply, 'its being agreeable like pleasure.'--Is then the apūrva
a pleasure? It is pleasure alone which is agreeable!--Well, let us then
define the apūrva as a kind of pleasure of a special nature, called by
that name!--But what proof, we ask, have you for this? You will, in the
first place, admit yourself that you do not directly experience any
pleasure springing from consciousness of your apūrva, which could in any
way be compared to the pleasure caused by the consciousness of the
objects of the senses.--Well, let us say then that as authoritative
doctrine gives us the notion of an apūrva as something beneficial to man,
we conclude that it will be enjoyed later on.--But, we ask, what is the
authoritative doctrine establishing such an apūrva beneficial to man?
Not, in the first place, ordinary, i.e. non-Vedic doctrine; for such has
for its object action only which always is essentially painful. Nor, in
the next place, Vedic texts; for those also enjoin action only as the
means to bring about certain results such as the heavenly world. Nor
again the Smriti texts enjoining works of either permanent or occasional
obligation; for those texts always convey the notion of an apūrva only
on the basis of an antecedent knowledge of the apūrva as intimated by
Vedic texts containing terms such as svargakāmah. And we, moreover, do
not observe that in the case of works having a definite result in this
life, there is enjoyment of any special pleasure called apūrva, in
addition to those advantages which constitute the special result of the
work and are enjoyed here below, as e.g. abundance of food or freedom
from sickness. Thus there is not any proof of the apūrva being a
pleasure. The arthavāda-passages of the Veda also, while glorifying
certain pleasurable results of works, as e.g. the heavenly world, do not
anywhere exhibit a similar glorification of a pleasure called apūrva.

From all this we conclude that also in injunctory sentences that which
is expressed by imperative and similar forms is only the idea that the
meaning of the root--as known from grammar--is to be effected by the
effort of the agent. And that what constitutes the meaning of roots, viz.
the action of sacrificing and the like, possesses the quality of
pleasing the highest Person, who is the inner ruler of Agni and other
divinities (to whom the sacrifices are ostensibly offered), and that
through the highest Person thus pleased the result of the sacrifice is
accomplished, we shall show later on, under Sū. III, 2, 37--It is thus
finally proved that the Vedānta-texts give information about an
accomplished entity, viz. Brahman, and that the fruit of meditation on
Brahman is something infinite and permanent. Where, on the other hand,
Scripture refers to the fruit of mere works, such as the kāturmāsya-
sacrifices, as something imperishable, we have to understand this
imperishableness in a merely relative sense, for Scripture definitely
teaches that the fruit of all works is perishable.

We thus arrive at the settled conclusion that, since the fruit of mere
works is limited and perishable, while that of the cognition of Brahman
is infinite and permanent, there is good reason for entering on an
enquiry into Brahman--the result of which enquiry will be the accurate
determination of Brahman's nature.--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'Enquiry.'

What then is that Brahman which is here said to be an object that should
be enquired into?--To this question the second Sūtra gives a reply.

[FOOTNOTE 148:1. This view is held by the Prābhākara Mīmāmsakas.]




2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c., of this (world proceed).

The expression 'the origin', &c., means 'creation, subsistence, and
reabsorption'. The 'this' (in 'of this') denotes this entire world with
its manifold wonderful arrangements, not to be fathomed by thought, and
comprising within itself the aggregate of living souls from Brahmā down
to blades of grass, all of which experience the fruits (of their former
actions) in definite places and at definite times. 'That from which,' i.
e. that highest Person who is the ruler of all; whose nature is
antagonistic to all evil; whose purposes come true; who possesses
infinite auspicious qualities, such as knowledge, blessedness, and so on;
who is omniscient, omnipotent, supremely merciful; from whom the
creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of this world proceed--he is
Brahman: such is the meaning of the Sūtra.--The definition here given of
Brahman is founded on the text Taitt. Up. III, 1, 'Bhrigu Vāruni went to
his father Varuna, saying, Sir, teach me Brahman', &c., up to 'That from
which these beings are born, that by which when born they live, that
into which they enter at their death, try to know that: that is Brahman.'

A doubt arises here. Is it possible, or not, to gain a knowledge of
Brahman from the characteristic marks stated in this passage?--It is not
possible, the Pūrvapakshin contends. The attributes stated in that
passage--viz. being that from which the world originates, and so on--do
not properly indicate Brahman; for as the essence of an attribute lies
in its separative or distinctive function, there would result from the
plurality of distinctive attributes plurality on the part of Brahman
itself.--But when we say 'Devadatta is of a dark complexion, is young,
has reddish eyes,' &c., we also make a statement as to several
attributes, and yet we are understood to refer to one Devadatta only;
similarly we understand in the case under discussion also that there is
one Brahman only!--Not so, we reply. In Devadatta's case we connect all
attributes with one person, because we know his unity through other
means of knowledge; otherwise the distinctive power of several
attributes would lead us, in this case also, to the assumption of
several substances to which the several attributes belong. In the case
under discussion, on the other hand, we do not, apart from the statement
as to attributes, know anything about the unity of Brahman, and the
distinctive power of the attributes thus necessarily urges upon us the
idea of several Brahmans.--But we maintain that the unity of the term
'Brahman' intimates the unity of the thing 'Brahman'!--By no means, we
reply. If a man who knows nothing about cows, but wishes to know about
them, is told 'a cow is that which has either entire horns, or mutilated
horns, or no horns,' the mutally exclusive ideas of the possession of
entire horns, and so on, raise in his mind the ideas of several
individual cows, although the term 'cow' is one only; and in the same
way we are led to the idea of several distinct Brahmans. For this reason,
even the different attributes combined are incapable of defining the
thing, the definition of which is desired.--Nor again are the
characteristics enumerated in the Taitt. passage (viz. creation of the
world, &c.) capable of defining Brahman in the way of secondary marks
(upalakshana), because the thing to be defined by them is not previously
known in a different aspect. So-called secondary marks are the cause of
something already known from a certain point of view, being known in a
different aspect--as when it is said 'Where that crane is standing, that
is the irrigated field of Devadatta.'--But may we not say that from the
text 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman,' we already have an
idea of Brahman, and that hence its being the cause of the origin, &c.,
of the world may be taken as collateral indications (pointing to
something already known in a certain way)?--Not so, we reply; either of
these two defining texts has a meaning only with reference to an aspect
of Brahman already known from the other one, and this mutual dependence
deprives both of their force.--Brahman cannot therefore be known through
the characteristic marks mentioned in the text under discussion.

To this primā facie view we make the following reply. Brahman can be
known on the basis of the origination, subsistence, and reabsorption of
the world--these characteristics occupying the position of collateral
marks. No objection can be raised against this view, on the ground that,
apart from what these collateral marks point to, no other aspect of
Brahman is known; for as a matter of fact they point to that which is
known to us as possessing supreme greatness (brihattva) and power of
growth (brimhana)--this being the meaning of the root brimh (from which
'Brahman' is derived). Of this Brahman, thus already known (on the basis
of etymology), the origination, sustentation, and reabsorption of the
world are collateral marks. Moreover, in the Taitt. text under
discussion, the relative pronoun--which appears in three forms, (that)
'from whence,' (that) 'by which,' (that) 'into which'--refers to
something which is already known as the cause of the origin, and so on,
of the world. This previous knowledge rests on the Ch. passage, 'Being
only this was in the beginning,' &c., up to 'it sent forth fire'--which
declares that the one principle denoted as 'being' is the universal
material, and instrumental cause. There the clause 'Being only this was
in the beginning, one only,' establishes that one being as the general
material cause; the word 'without a second' negatives the existence of a
second operative cause; and the clauses 'it thought, may I be many, may
I grow forth', and 'it sent forth fire', establish that one being (as
the cause and substance of everything). If, then, it is said that
Brahman is that which is the root of the world's origination,
subsistence, and reabsorption, those three processes sufficiently
indicate Brahman as that entity which is their material and operative
cause; and as being the material and the operative cause implies
greatness (brihattva) manifesting itself in various powers, such as
omniscience, and so on, Brahman thus is something already known; and as
hence origination, &c., of the world are marks of something already
known, the objection founded above on the absence of knowledge of
another aspect of Brahman is seen to be invalid.--Nor is there really
any objection to the origination, &c., of the world being taken as
characteristic marks of Brahman in so far as they are distinctive
attributes. For taken as attributes they indicate Brahman as something
different from what is opposed to those attributes. Several attributes
which do not contradict each other may serve quite well as
characteristic marks defining one thing, the nature of which is not
otherwise known, without the plurality of the attributes in any way
involving plurality of the thing defined; for as those attributes are at
once understood to belong to one substrate, we naturally combine them
within that one substrate. Such attributes, of course, as the possession
of mutilated horns (mentioned above), which are contradictorily opposed
to each other, necessarily lead to the assumption of several individual
cows to which they severally belong; but the origination, &c., of the
world are processes separated from each other by difference of time only,
and may therefore, without contradiction, be connected with one Brahman
in succession.--The text 'from whence these beings', &c., teaches us
that Brahman is the cause of the origination, &c., of the world, and of
this Brahman thus known the other text 'The True, knowledge, the
Infinite is Brahman', tells us that its essential nature marks it off
from everything else. The term 'True' expresses Brahman in so far as
possessing absolutely non-conditioned existence, and thus distinguishes
it from non-intelligent matter, the abode of change, and the souls
implicated in matter; for as both of these enter into different states
of existence called by different names, they do not enjoy unconditioned
being. The term 'knowledge' expresses the characteristic of permanently
non-contracted intelligence, and thus distinguishes Brahman from the
released souls whose intelligence is sometimes in a contracted state.
And the term 'Infinite' denotes that, whose nature is free from all
limitation of place, time, and particular substantial nature; and as
Brahman's essential nature possesses attributes, infinity belongs both
to the essential nature and to the attributes. The qualification of
Infinity excludes all those individual souls whose essential nature and
attributes are not unsurpassable, and who are distinct from the two
classes of beings already excluded by the two former terms (viz. 'true
being' and 'knowledge').--The entire text therefore defines Brahman--
which is already known to be the cause of the origination, &c., of the
world--as that which is in kind different from all other things; and it
is therefore not true that the two texts under discussion have no force
because mutually depending on each other. And from this it follows that
a knowledge of Brahman may be gained on the ground of its characteristic
marks--such as its being the cause of the origination, &c., of the world,
free from all evil, omniscient, all-powerful, and so on.

To those, on the other hand, who maintain that the object of enquiry is
a substance devoid of all difference, neither the first nor the second
Sūtra can be acceptable; for the Brahman, the enquiry into which the
first Sūtra proposes, is, according to authoritative etymology,
something of supreme greatness; and according to the second Sūtra it is
the cause of the origin, subsistence, and final destruction of the world.
The same remark holds good with regard to all following Sūtras, and the
scriptural texts on which they are based--none of them confirm the
theory of a substance devoid of all difference. Nor, again, does
Reasoning prove such a theory; for Reasoning has for its object things
possessing a 'proving' attribute which constantly goes together with an
attribute 'to be proved.' And even if, in agreement with your view, we
explained the second Sūtra as meaning 'Brahman is that whence proceeds
the error of the origination, &c., of the world', we should not thereby
advance your theory of a substance devoid of all difference. For, as you
teach, the root of all error is Nescience, and Brahman is that which
witnesses (is conscious of) Nescience, and the essence of witnessing
consciousness consists in being pure light (intelligence), and the
essence of pure light or intelligence is that, distinguishing itself
from the Non-intelligent, it renders itself, as well as what is
different from it, capable of becoming the object of empiric thought and
speech (vyavahāra). All this implies the presence of difference--if
there were no difference, light or intelligence could not be what it is,
it would be something altogether void, without any meaning.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'origination and so on.'

An objection to the purport of the preceding Sūtras here presents itself.--
The assertion that Brahman, as the cause of the origination, &c., of the
world, must be known through the Vedānta-texts is unfounded; for as
Brahman may be inferred as the cause of the world through ordinary
reasoning, it is not something requiring to be taught by authoritative
texts.--To this objection the next Sūtra replies.




3. Because Scripture is the source (of the knowledge of Brahman).

Because Brahman, being raised above all contact with the senses, is not
an object of perception and the other means of proof, but to be known
through Scripture only; therefore the text 'Whence these creatures are
born,' &c., has to be accepted as instructing us regarding the true
nature of Brahman.--But, our opponent points out, Scripture cannot be
the source of our knowledge of Brahman, because Brahman is to be known
through other means. For it is an acknowledged principle that Scripture
has meaning only with regard to what is not established by other sources
of knowledge.--But what, to raise a primā facie counter objection, are
those other sources of knowledge? It cannot, in the first place, be
Perception. Perception is twofold, being based either on the sense-
organs or on extraordinary concentration of mind (yoga). Of Perception
of the former kind there are again two sub-species, according as
Perception takes place either through the outer sense-organs or the
internal organ (manas). Now the outer sense-organs produce knowledge of
their respective objects, in so far as the latter are in actual contact
with the organs, but are quite unable to give rise to the knowledge of
the special object constituted by a supreme Self that is capable of
being conscious of and creating the whole aggregate of things. Nor can
internal perception give rise to such knowledge; for only purely
internal things, such as pleasure and pain, fall within its cognisance,
and it is incapable of relating itself to external objects apart from
the outer sense-organs. Nor, again, perception based on Yoga; for
although such perception--which springs from intense imagination--
implies a vivid presentation of things, it is, after all, nothing more
than a reproduction of objects perceived previously, and does not
therefore rank as an instrument of knowledge; for it has no means of
applying itself to objects other than those perceived previously. And if,
after all, it does so, it is (not a means of knowledge but) a source of
error.--Nor also inference either of the kind which proceeds on the
observation of special cases or of the kind which rests on
generalizations (cp. Nyāya Sū. I, 1,5,). Not inference of the former
kind, because such inference is not known to relate to anything lying
beyond the reach of the senses. Nor inference of the latter kind,
because we do not observe any characteristic feature that is invariably
accompanied by the presence of a supreme Self capable of being conscious
of, and constructing, the universe of things.--But there _is_ such a
feature, viz. the world's being an effected thing; it being a matter of
common experience that whatever is an effect or product, is due to an
agent who possesses a knowledge of the material cause, the instrumental
cause, the final end, and the person meant to make use of the thing
produced. It further is matter of experience that whatever consists of
non-sentient matter is dependent on, or ruled by, a single intelligent
principle. The former generalization is exemplified by the case of jars
and similar things, and the latter by a living body in good health,
which consists of non-intelligent matter dependent on an intelligent
principle. And that the body is an effected thing follows from its
consisting of parts.--Against this argumentation also objections may be
raised. What, it must be asked, do you understand by this dependence on
an intelligent principle? Not, we suppose, that the origination and
subsistence of the non-intelligent thing should be dependent on the
intelligent principle; for in that case your example would not help to
prove your contention. Neither the origin nor the subsistence of a
person's healthy body depends on the intelligent soul of that person
alone; they rather are brought about by the merit and demerit of all
those souls which in any way share the fruition of that body--the wife,
e.g. of that person, and others. Moreover, the existence of a body made
up of parts means that body's being connected with its parts in the way
of so-called intimate relation (sama-vāya), and this requires a certain
combination of the parts but not a presiding intelligent principle. The
existence of animated bodies, moreover, has for its characteristic mark
the process of breathing, which is absent in the case of the earth, sea,
mountains, &c.--all of which are included in the class of things
concerning which you wish to prove something--, and we therefore miss a
uniform kind of existence common to all those things.--Let us then
understand by the dependence of a non-intelligent thing on an
intelligent principle, the fact of the motion of the former depending on
the latter!--This definition, we rejoin, would comprehend also those
cases in which heavy things, such as carriages, masses of stone, trees,
&c., are set in motion by several intelligent beings (while what you want
to prove is the dependence of a moving thing on one intelligent
principle). If, on the other hand, you mean to say that all motion
depends on intelligence in general, you only prove what requires no
proof.--Another alternative, moreover, here presents itself. As we both
admit the existence of individual souls, it will be the more economical
hypothesis to ascribe to them the agency implied in the construction of
the world. Nor must you object to this view on the ground that such
agency cannot belong to the individual souls because they do not possess
the knowledge of material causes, &c., as specified above; for all
intelligent beings are capable of direct knowledge of material causes,
such as earth and so on, and instrumental causes, such as sacrifices and
the like. Earth and other material substances, as well as sacrifices and
the like, are directly perceived by individual intelligent beings at the
present time (and were no doubt equally perceived so at a former time
when this world had to be planned and constructed). Nor does the fact
that intelligent beings are not capable of direct insight into the
unseen principle--called 'apūrva,' or by similar names--which resides in
the form of a power in sacrifices and other instrumental causes, in any
way preclude their being agents in the construction of the world. Direct
insight into powers is nowhere required for undertaking work: what _is_
required for that purpose is only direct presentative knowledge of the
things endowed with power, while of power itself it suffices to have
some kind of knowledge. Potters apply themselves to the task of making
pots and jars on the strength of the direct knowledge they possess of
the implements of their work--the wheel, the staff, &c.--without
troubling about a similar knowledge of the powers inherent in those
implements; and in the same way intelligent beings may apply themselves
to their work (to be effected by means of sacrifices, &c.), if only they
are assured by sacred tradition of the existence of the various powers
possessed by sacrifices and the like.--Moreover, experience teaches that
agents having a knowledge of the material and other causes must be
inferred only in the case of those effects which can be produced, and
the material and other causes of which can be known: such things, on the
other hand, as the earth, mountains, and oceans, can neither be produced,
nor can their material and other causes ever be known; we therefore have
no right to infer for them intelligent producers. Hence the quality of
being an effected thing can be used as an argument for proving the
existence of an intelligent causal agent, only where that quality is
found in things, the production of which, and the knowledge of the
causes of which, is possible at all.--Experience further teaches that
earthen pots and similar things are produced by intelligent agents
possessing material bodies, using implements, not endowed with the power
of a Supreme Lord, limited in knowledge and so on; the quality of being
an effect therefore supplies a reason for inferring an intelligent agent
of the kind described only, and thus is opposed to the inference of
attributes of a contrary nature, viz. omniscience, omnipotence, and
those other attributes that belong--to the highest Soul, whose existence
you wish to establish.--Nor does this (as might be objected) imply an
abandonment of all inference. Where the thing to be inferred is known
through other means of proof also, any qualities of an opposite nature
which maybe suggested by the inferential mark (linga) are opposed by
those other means of proof, and therefore must be dropped. In the case
under discussion, however, the thine; to be inferred is something not
guaranteed by any other means of proof, viz. a person capable of
constructing the entire universe; here there is nothing to interfere
with the ascription to such a person of all those qualities which, on
the basis of methodical inference, necessarily belong to it.--The
conclusion from all this is that, apart from Scripture, the existence of
a Lord does not admit of proof.

Against all this the Pūrvapakshin now restates his case as follows:--It
cannot be gainsaid that the world is something effected, for it is made
up of parts. We may state this argument in various technical forms. 'The
earth, mountains, &c., are things effected, because they consist of
parts; in the same way as jars and similar things.' 'The earth, seas,
mountains, &c., are effects, because, while being big; (i.e. non-atomic),
they are capable of motion; just as jars and the like.' 'Bodies, the
world, &c., are effects, because, while being big, they are solid
(mūrtta); just as jars and the like.'--But, an objection is raised, in
the case of things made up of parts we do not, in addition to this
attribute of consisting of parts, observe any other aspect determining
that the thing is an effect--so as to enable us to say 'this thing is
effected, and that thing is not'; and, on the other hand, we do observe
it as an indispensable condition of something being an effect, that
there should be the possibility of such an effect being brought about,
and of the existence of such knowledge of material causes, &c. (as the
bringing about of the effect presupposes).--Not so, we reply. In the
case of a cause being inferred on the ground of an effect, the knowledge
and power of the cause must be inferred in accordance with the nature of
the effect. From the circumstance of a thing consisting of parts we know
it to be an effect and on this basis we judge of the power and knowledge
of the cause. A person recognises pots, jars and the like, as things
produced, and therefrom infers the constructive skill and knowledge of
their maker; when, after this, he sees for the first time a kingly
palace with all its various wonderful parts and structures, he concludes
from the special way in which the parts are joined that this also is an
effected thing, and then makes an inference as to the architect's
manifold knowledge and skill. Analogously, when a living body and the
world have once been recognised to be effects, we infer--as their maker--
some special intelligent being, possessing direct insight into their
nature and skill to construct them.--Pleasure and pain, moreover, by
which men are requited for their merit and demerit, are themselves of a
non-intelligent nature, and hence cannot bring about their results
unless they are controlled by an intelligent principle, and this also
compels us to assume a being capable of allotting to each individual
soul a fate corresponding to its deserts. For we do not observe that non-
intelligent implements, such as axes and the like, however much they may
be favoured by circumstances of time, place, and so on, are capable of
producing posts and pillars unless they be handled by a carpenter. And
to quote against the generalization on which we rely the instance of the
seed and sprout and the like can only spring from an ignorance and
stupidity which may be called truly demoniac. The same remark would
apply to pleasure and pain if used as a counter instance. (For in all
these cases the action which produces an effect must necessarily be
guided by an intelligent principle.)--Nor may we assume, as a 'less
complicated hypothesis,' that the guiding principle in the construction
of the world is the individual souls, whose existence is acknowledged by
both parties. For on the testimony of observation we must deny to those
souls the power of seeing what is extremely subtle or remote in time or
place (while such power must necessarily be ascribed to a world-
constructing intelligence). On the other hand, we have no ground for
concluding that the Lord is, like the individual souls, destitute of
such power; hence it cannot be said that other means of knowledge make
it impossible to infer such a Lord. The fact rather is that as his
existence is proved by the argument that any definite effect presupposes
a causal agent competent to produce that effect, he is proved at the
same time as possessing the essential power of intuitively knowing and
ruling all things in the universe.--The contention that from the world
being an effect it follows that its maker does not possess lordly power
and so on, so that the proving reason would prove something contrary to
the special attributes (belonging to a supreme agent, viz. omnipotence,
omniscience, &c.), is founded on evident ignorance of the nature of the
inferential process. For the inference clearly does not prove that there
exist in the thing inferred all the attributes belonging to the proving
collateral instances, including even those attributes which stand in no
causal relation to the effect. A certain effect which is produced by
some agent presupposes just so much power and knowledge on the part of
that agent as is requisite for the production of the effect, but in no
way presupposes any incapability or ignorance on the part of that agent
with regard to things other than the particular effect; for such
incapability and ignorance do not stand towards that effect in any
causal relation. If the origination of the effect can be accounted for
on the basis of the agent's capability of bringing it about, and of his
knowledge of the special material and instrumental causes, it would be
unreasonable to ascribe causal agency to his (altogether irrelevant)
incapabilities and ignorance with regard to other things, only because
those incapabilities, &c., are observed to exist together with his
special capability and knowledge. The question would arise moreover
whether such want of capability and knowledge (with regard to things
other than the one actually effected) would be helpful towards the
bringing about of that one effect, in so far as extending to all other
things or to some other things. The former alternative is excluded
because no agent, a potter e.g., is quite ignorant of all other things
but his own special work; and the second alternative is inadmissible
because there is no definite rule indicating that there should be
certain definite kinds of want of knowledge and skill in the case of all
agents [FOOTNOTE 168:1], and hence exceptions would arise with regard to
every special case of want of knowledge and skill. From this it follows
that the absence of lordly power and similar qualities which (indeed is
observed in the case of ordinary agents but) in no way contributes
towards the production of the effects (to which such agents give rise)
is not proved in the case of that which we wish to prove (i.e. a Lord,
creator of the world), and that hence Inference does not establish
qualities contrary (to the qualities characteristic of a Lord).

A further objection will perhaps be raised, viz. that as experience
teaches that potters and so on direct their implements through the
mediation of their own bodies, we are not justified in holding that a
bodiless Supreme Lord directs the material and instrumental causes of
the universe.--But in reply to this we appeal to the fact of experience,
that evil demons possessing men's bodies, and also venom, are driven or
drawn out of those bodies by mere will power. Nor must you ask in what
way the volition of a bodiless Lord can put other bodies in motion; for
volition is not dependent on a body. The cause of volitions is not the
body but the internal organ (manas), and such an organ we ascribe to the
Lord also, since what proves the presence of an internal organ endowed
with power and knowledge is just the presence of effects.--But volitions,
even if directly springing from the internal organ, can belong to
embodied beings only, such only possessing internal organs!--This
objection also is founded on a mistaken generalization: the fact rather
is that the internal organ is permanent, and exists also in separation
from the body. The conclusion, therefore, is that--as the individual
souls with their limited capacities and knowledge, and their dependence
on merit and demerit, are incapable of giving rise to things so variously
and wonderfully made as worlds and animated bodies are--inference
directly leads us to the theory that there is a supreme intelligent
agent, called the Lord, who possesses unfathomable, unlimited powers and
wisdom, is capable of constructing the entire world, is without a body,
and through his mere volition brings about the infinite expanse of this
entire universe so variously and wonderfully planned. As Brahman may
thus be ascertained by means of knowledge other than revelation, the
text quoted under the preceding Sūtra cannot be taken to convey
instruction as to Brahman. Since, moreover, experience demonstrates that
material and instrumental causes always are things absolutely distinct
from each other, as e.g. the clay and the potter with his implements;
and since, further, there are substances not made up of parts, as e.g.
ether, which therefore cannot be viewed as effects; we must object on
these grounds also to any attempt to represent the one Brahman as the
universal material and instrumental cause of the entire world.

Against all this we now argue as follows:--The Vedānta-text declaring
the origination, &c., of the world does teach that there is a Brahman
possessing the characteristics mentioned; since Scripture alone is a
means for the knowledge of Brahman. That the world is an effected thing
because it consists of parts; and that, as all effects are observed to
have for their antecedents certain appropriate agents competent to
produce them, we must infer a causal agent competent to plan and
construct the universe, and standing towards it in the relation of
material and operative cause--this would be a conclusion altogether
unjustified. There is no proof to show that the earth, oceans, &c.,
although things produced, were created at one time by one creator. Nor
can it be pleaded in favour of such a conclusion that all those things
have one uniform character of being effects, and thus are analogous to
one single jar; for we observe that various effects are distinguished by
difference of time of production, and difference of producers. Nor again
may you maintain the oneness of the creator on the ground that
individual souls are incapable of the creation of this wonderful
universe, and that if an additional principle be assumed to account for
the world--which manifestly is a product--it would be illegitimate to
assume more than one such principle. For we observe that individual
beings acquire more and more extraordinary powers in consequence of an
increase of religious merit; and as we may assume that through an
eventual supreme degree of merit they may in the end qualify themselves
for producing quite extraordinary effects, we have no right to assume a
highest soul of infinite merit, different from all individual souls. Nor
also can it be proved that all things are destroyed and produced all at
once; for no such thing is observed to take place, while it is, on the
other hand, observed that things are produced and destroyed in
succession; and if we infer that all things are produced and destroyed
because they are effects, there is no reason why this production and
destruction should not take place in a way agreeing with ordinary
experience. If, therefore, what it is desired to prove is the agency of
one intelligent being, we are met by the difficulty that the proving
reason (viz. the circumstance of something being an effect) is not
invariably connected with what it is desired to prove; there, further,
is the fault of qualities not met with in experience being attributed to
the subject about which something has to be proved; and lastly there is
the fault of the proving collateral instances being destitute of what
has to be proved--for experience does not exhibit to us one agent
capable of producing everything. If, on the other hand, what you wish to
prove is merely the existence of an intelligent creative agent, you
prove only what is proved already (not contested by any one).--Moreover,
if you use the attribute of being an effect (which belongs to the
totality of things) as a means to prove the existence of one omniscient
and omnipotent creator, do you view this attribute as belonging to all
things in so far as produced together, or in so far as produced in
succession? In the former case the attribute of being an effect is not
established (for experience does not show that all things are produced
together); and in the latter case the attribute would really prove what
is contrary to the hypothesis of one creator (for experience shows that
things produced in succession have different causes). In attempting to
prove the agency of one intelligent creative being only, we thus enter
into conflict with Perception and Inference, and we moreover contradict
Scripture, which says that 'the potter is born' and 'the cartwright is
born' (and thus declares a plurality of intelligent agents). Moreover,
as we observe that all effected things, such as living bodies and so on,
are connected with pleasure and the like, which are the effects of
sattva (goodness) and the other primary constituents of matter, we must
conclude that effected things have sattva and so on for their causes.
Sattva and so on--which constitute the distinctive elements of the
causal substance--are the causes of the various nature of the effects.
Now those effects can be connected with their causes only in so far as
the internal organ of a person possessing sattva and so on undergoes
modifications. And that a person possesses those qualities is due to
karman. Thus, in order to account for the origination of different
effects we must necessarily assume the connexion of an intelligent agent
with karman, whereby alone he can become the cause of effects; and
moreover the various character of knowledge and power (which the various
effects presuppose) has its reason in karman. And if it be said that it
is (not the various knowledge, &c., but) the mere wish of the agent that
causes the origination of effects, we point out that the wish, as being
specialised by its particular object, must be based on sattva and so on,
and hence is necessarily connected with karman. From all this it follows
that individual souls only can be causal agents: no legitimate inference
leads to a Lord different from them in nature.--This admits of various
expressions in technical form. 'Bodies, worlds, &c., are effects due to
the causal energy of individual souls, just as pots are'; 'the Lord is
not a causal agent, because he has no aims; just as the released souls
have none'; 'the Lord is not an agent, because he has no body; just as
the released souls have none.' (This last argumentation cannot be
objected to on the ground that individual souls take possession of
bodies; for in their case there exists a beginningless subtle body by
means of which they enter into gross bodies).--'Time is never devoid of
created worlds; because it is time, just like the present time (which
has its created world).'

Consider the following point also. Does the Lord produce his effects,
with his body or apart from his body? Not the latter; for we do not
observe causal agency on the part of any bodiless being: even the
activities of the internal organ are found only in beings having a body,
and although the internal organ be eternal we do not know of its
producing any effects in the case of released disembodied souls. Nor
again is the former alternative admissible; for in that case the Lord's
body would either be permanent or non-permanent. The former alternative
would imply that something made up of parts is eternal; and if we once
admit this we may as well admit that the world itself is eternal, and
then there is no reason to infer a Lord. And the latter alternative is
inadmissible because in that case there would be no cause of the body,
different from it (which would account for the origination of the body).
Nor could the Lord himself be assumed as the cause of the body, since a
bodiless being cannot be the cause of a body. Nor could it be maintained
that the Lord can be assumed to be 'embodied' by means of some other
body; for this leads us into a _regressus in infinitum._--Should we,
moreover, represent to ourselves the Lord (when productive) as engaged
in effort or not?--The former is inadmissible, because he is without a
body. And the latter alternative is excluded because a being not making
an effort does not produce effects. And if it be said that the effect, i.
e. the world, has for its causal agent one whose activity consists in
mere desire, this would be to ascribe to the subject of the conclusion
(i.e. the world) qualities not known from experience; and moreover the
attribute to be proved would be absent in the case of the proving
instances (such as jars, &c., which are not the work of agents engaged
in mere wishing). Thus the inference of a creative Lord which claims to
be in agreement with observation is refuted by reasoning which itself is
in agreement with observation, and we hence conclude that Scripture is
the only source of knowledge with regard to a supreme soul that is the
Lord of all and constitutes the highest Brahman. What Scripture tells us
of is a being which comprehends within itself infinite, altogether
unsurpassable excellences such as omnipotence and so on, is antagonistic
to all evil, and totally different in character from whatever is
cognised by the other means of knowledge: that to such a being there
should attach even the slightest imperfection due to its similarity in
nature to the things known by the ordinary means of knowledge, is thus
altogether excluded.--The Pūrvapakshin had remarked that the oneness of
the instrumental and the material cause is neither matter of observation
nor capable of proof, and that the same holds good with regard to the
theory that certain non-composite substances such as ether are created
things; that these points also are in no way contrary to reason, we
shall show later on under Sū. I, 4, 23, and Sū. II, 3, 1.

The conclusion meanwhile is that, since Brahman does not fall within the
sphere of the other means of knowledge, and is the topic of Scripture
only, the text 'from whence these creatures,' &c., _does_ give
authoritative information as to a Brahman possessing the characteristic
qualities so often enumerated. Here terminates the adhikarana of
'Scripture being the source.'

A new objection here presents itself.--Brahman does not indeed fall
within the province of the other means of knowledge; but all the same
Scripture does not give authoritative information regarding it: for
Brahman is not something that has for its purport activity or cessation
from activity, but is something fully established and accomplished
within itself.--To this objection the following Sūtra replies.

[FOOTNOTE 168:1. A certain potter may not possess the skill and
knowledge required to make chairs and beds; but some other potter may
possess both, and so on. We cannot therefore point to any definite want
of skill and knowledge as invariably accompanying the capability of
producing effects of some other kind.]




4. But that (i.e. the authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to
Brahman) exists on account of the connexion (of Scripture with the
highest aim of man).

The word 'but' is meant to rebut the objection raised. _That_, i.e. the
authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to Brahman, is possible, on
account of samanvaya, i.e. connexion with the highest aim of man--that
is to say because the scriptural texts are connected with, i.e. have for
their subject, Brahman, which constitutes the highest aim of man. For
such is the connected meaning of the whole aggregate of words which
constitutes the Upanishads--'That from whence these beings are
born'(Taitt. Up. III, 1, 1). 'Being only this was in the beginning, one,
without a second' (Ch. Up. VI, 2), &c. &c. And of aggregates of words
which are capable of giving information about accomplished things known
through the ordinary means of ascertaining the meaning of words, and
which connectedly refer to a Brahman which is the cause of the
origination, subsistence, and destruction of the entire world, is
antagonistic to all imperfection and so on, we have no right to say that,
owing to the absence of a purport in the form of activity or cessation
of activity, they really refer to something other than Brahman.

For all instruments of knowledge have their end in determining the
knowledge of their own special objects: their action does not adapt
itself to a final purpose, but the latter rather adapts itself to the
means of knowledge. Nor is it true that where there is no connexion with
activity or cessation of activity all aim is absent; for in such cases
we observe connexion with what constitutes the general aim, i.e. the
benefit of man. Statements of accomplished matter of fact--such as 'a
son is born to thee.' 'This is no snake'--evidently have an aim, viz. in
so far as they either give rise to joy or remove pain and fear.

Against this view the Pūrvapakshin now argues as follows. The Vedānta-
texts do not impart knowledge of Brahman; for unless related to activity
or the cessation of activity, Scripture would be unmeaning, devoid of
all purpose. Perception and the other means of knowledge indeed have
their aim and end in supplying knowledge of the nature of accomplished
things and facts; Scripture, on the other hand, must be supposed to aim
at some practical purpose. For neither in ordinary speech nor in the
Veda do we ever observe the employment of sentences devoid of a
practical purpose: the employment of sentences not having such a purpose
is in fact impossible. And what constitutes such purpose is the
attainment of a desired, or the avoidance of a non-desired object, to be
effected by some action or abstention from action. 'Let a man desirous
of wealth attach himself to the court of a prince'; 'a man with a weak
digestion must not drink much water'; 'let him who is desirous of the
heavenly world offer sacrifices'; and so on. With regard to the
assertion that such sentences also as refer to accomplished things--'a
son is born to thee' and so on--are connected with certain aims of man,
viz. joy or the cessation of fear, we ask whether in such cases the
attainment of man's purpose results from the thing or fact itself, as e.
g. the birth of a son, or from the knowledge of that thing or fact.--You
will reply that as a thing although actually existing is of no use to
man as long as it is not known to him, man's purpose is accomplished by
his knowledge of the thing.--It then appears, we rejoin, that man's
purpose is effected through mere knowledge, even if there is no actual
thing; and from this it follows that Scripture, although connected with
certain aims, is not a means of knowledge for the actual existence of
things. In all cases, therefore, sentences have a practical purpose;
they determine either some form of activity or cessation from activity,
or else some form of knowledge. No sentence, therefore, can have for its
purport an accomplished thing, and hence the Vedānta-texts do not convey
the knowledge of Brahman as such an accomplished entity.

At this point somebody propounds the following view. The Vedānta-texts
_are_ an authoritative means for the cognition of Brahman, because as a
matter of fact they also aim at something to be done. What they really
mean to teach is that Brahman, which in itself is pure homogeneous
knowledge, without a second, not connected with a world, but is, owing
to beginningless Nescience, viewed as connected with a world, should be
freed from this connexion. And it is through this process of dissolution
of the world that Brahman becomes the object of an injunction.--But
which texts embody this injunction, according to which Brahman in its
pure form is to be realised through the dissolution of this apparent
world with its distinction of knowing subjects and objects of
knowledge?--Texts such as the following: 'One should not see (i. e.
represent to oneself) the seer of seeing, one should not think the
thinker of thinking' (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2); for this means that we should
realise Brahman in the form of pure Seeing (knowledge), free from the
distinction of seeing agents and objects of sight. Brahman is indeed
accomplished through itself, but all the same it may constitute an
object to be accomplished, viz. in so far as it is being disengaged from
the apparent world.

This view (the Mīmāmsaka rejoins) is unfounded. He who maintains that
injunction constitutes the meaning of sentences must be able to assign
the injunction itself, the qualification of the person to whom the
injunction is addressed, the object of the injunction, the means to
carry it out, the special mode of the procedure, and the person carrying
out the injunction. Among these things the qualification of the person
to whom the injunction addresses itself is something not to be enjoined
(but existing previously to the injunction), and is of the nature either
of cause (nimitta) or a result aimed at (phala). We then have to decide
what, in the case under discussion (i.e. the alleged injunction set
forth by the antagonist), constitutes the qualification of the person to
whom the injunction addresses itself, and whether it be of the nature of
a cause or of a result.--Let it then be said that what constitutes the
qualification in our case is the intuition of the true nature of Brahman
(on the part of the person to whom the injunction is addressed).--This,
we rejoin, cannot be a cause, as it is not something previously
established; while in other cases the nimitta is something so
established, as e.g. 'life' is in the case of a person to whom the
following injunction is addressed, 'As long as his life lasts he is to
make the Agnihotra-oblation.' And if, after all, it were admitted to be
a cause, it would follow that, as the intuition of the true nature of
Brahman is something permanent, the object of the injunction would have
to be accomplished even subsequently to final release, in the same way
as the Agnihotra has to be performed permanently as long as life lasts.--
Nor again can the intuition of Brahman's true nature be a result; for
then, being the result of an action enjoined, it would be something non-
permanent, like the heavenly world.--What, in the next place, would be
the 'object to be accomplished' of the injunction? You may not reply
'Brahman'; for as Brahman is something permanent it is not something
that can be realised, and moreover it is not denoted by a verbal form
(such as denote actions that can be accomplished, as e.g. yāga,
sacrifice).--Let it then be said that what is to be realised is Brahman,
in so far as free from the world!--But, we rejoin, even if this be
accepted as a thing to be realised, it is not the object (vishaya) of
the injunction--that it cannot be for the second reason just stated--but
its final result (phala). What moreover is, on this last assumption, the
thing to be realised--Brahman, or the cessation of the apparent world?--
Not Brahman; for Brahman is something accomplished, and from your
assumption it would follow that it is not eternal.--Well then, the
dissolution of the world!--Not so, we reply; for then it would not be
Brahman that is realised.--Let it then be said that the dissolution of
the world only is the object of the injunction!--This, too, cannot be,
we rejoin; that dissolution is the result (phala) and cannot therefore
be the object of the injunction. For the dissolution of the world means
final release; and that is the result aimed at. Moreover, if the
dissolution of the world is taken as the object of the injunction, that
dissolution would follow from the injunction, and the injunction would
be carried out by the dissolution of the world; and this would be a case
of vicious mutual dependence.--We further ask--is the world, which is to
be put an end to, false or real?--If it is false, it is put an end to by
knowledge alone, and then the injunction is needless. Should you reply
to this that the injunction puts an end to the world in so far as it
gives rise to knowledge, we reply that knowledge springs of itself from
the texts which declare the highest truth: hence there is no need of
additional injunctions. As knowledge of the meaning of those texts
sublates the entire false world distinct from Brahman, the injunction
itself with all its adjuncts is seen to be something baseless.--If, on
the other hand, the world is true, we ask--is the injunction, which puts
an end to the world, Brahman itself or something different from Brahman?
If the former, the world cannot exist at all: for what terminates it,
viz. Brahman, is something eternal; and the injunction thus being
eternal itself Cannot be accomplished by means of certa n actions.--Let
then the latter alternative be accepted!--But in that case, the niyoga
being something which is accomplished by a set of performances the
function of which it is to put an end to the entire world, the
performing person himself perishes (with the rest of the world), and the
niyoga thus remains without a substrate. And if everything apart from
Brahman is put an end to by a performance the function of which it is to
put an end to the world, there remains no result to be effected by the
niyoga, consequently there is no release.

Further, the dissolution of the world cannot constitute the instrument
(karana) in the action enjoined, because no mode of procedure
(itikartavyatā) can be assigned for the instrument of the niyoga, and
unless assisted by a mode of procedure an instrument cannot operate,--
But why is there no 'mode of procedure'?--For the following reasons. A
mode of procedure is either of a positive or a negative kind. If
positive, it may be of two kinds, viz. either such as to bring about the
instrument or to assist it. Now in our case there is no room for either
of these alternatives. Not for the former; for there exists in our case
nothing analogous to the stroke of the pestle (which has the manifest
effect of separating the rice grains from the husks), whereby the
visible effect of the dissolution of the whole world could be brought
about. Nor, secondly, is there the possibility of anything assisting the
instrument, already existing independently, to bring about its effect;
for owing to the existence of such an assisting factor the instrument
itself, i.e. the cessation of the apparent world, cannot be established.
Nor must you say that it is the cognition of the non-duality of Brahman
that brings about the means for the dissolution of the world; for, as we
have already explained above, this cognition directly brings about final
Release, which is the same as the dissolution of the world, and thus
there is nothing left to be effected by special means.--And if finally
the mode of procedure is something purely negative, it can, owing to
this its nature, neither bring about nor in any way assist the
instrumental cause. From all this it follows that there is no
possibility of injunctions having for their object the realisation of
Brahman, in so far as free from the world.

Here another primā facie view of the question is set forth.--It must be
admitted that the Vedānta-texts are not means of authoritative knowledge,
since they refer to Brahman, which is an accomplished thing (not a thing
'to be accomplished'); nevertheless Brahman itself is established, viz.
by means of those passages which enjoin meditation (as something 'to be
done'). This is the purport of texts such as the following: 'The Self is
to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated upon' (Bri.
Up. II, 4, 5); 'The Self which is free from sin must be searched out'
(Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); 'Let a man meditate upon him as the Self' (Bri. Up.
I, 4, 7); 'Let a man meditate upon the Self as his world' (Bri. Up. I, 4,
15).--These injunctions have meditation for their object, and meditation
again is defined by its own object only, so that the injunctive word
immediately suggests an object of meditation; and as such an object
there presents itself, the 'Self' mentioned in the same sentence. Now
there arises the question, What are the characteristics of that Self?
and in reply to it there come in texts such as 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman'; 'Being only this was in the beginning, one without
a second.' As these texts give the required special information, they
stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions, and hence are
means of right knowledge; and in this way the purport of the Vedānta-
texts includes Brahman--as having a definite place in meditation which
is the object of injunction. Texts such as 'One only without a second'
(Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'That is the true, that is the Self (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7); 'There is here not any plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19), teach that
there is one Reality only, viz. Brahman, and that everything else is
false. And as Perception and the other means of proof, as well as that
part of Scripture which refers to action and is based on the view of
plurality, convey the notion of plurality, and as there is contradiction
between plurality and absolute Unity, we form the conclusion that the
idea of plurality arises through beginningless avidyā, while absolute
Unity alone is real. And thus it is through the injunction of meditation
on Brahman--which has for its result the intuition of Brahman--that man
reaches final release, i.e. becomes one with Brahman, which consists of
non-dual intelligence free of all the manifold distinctions that spring
from Nescience. Nor is this becoming one with Brahman to be accomplished
by the mere cognition of the sense of certain Vedānta-texts; for this is
not observed--the fact rather being that the view of plurality persists
even after the cognition of the sense of those texts--, and, moreover,
if it were so, the injunction by Scripture of hearing, reflecting, &c.,
would be purposeless.

To this reasoning the following objection might be raised.--We observe
that when a man is told that what he is afraid of is not a snake, but
only a rope, his fear comes to an end; and as bondage is as unreal as
the snake imagined in the rope it also admits of being sublated by
knowledge, and may therefore, apart from all injunction, be put an end
to by the simple comprehension of the sense of certain texts. If final
release were to be brought about by injunctions, it would follow that it
is not eternal--not any more than the heavenly world and the like; while
yet its eternity is admitted by every one. Acts of religious merit,
moreover (such as are prescribed by injunctions), can only be the causes
of certain results in so far as they give rise to a body capable of
experiencing those results, and thus necessarily produce the so-called
samsāra-state (which is opposed to final release, and) which consists in
the connexion of the soul with some sort of body, high or low. Release,
therefore, is not something to be brought about by acts of religious
merit. In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'For the soul as long as it
is in the body, there is no release from pleasure and pain; when it is
free from the body, then neither pleasure nor pain touch it' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 12, 1). This passage declares that in the state of release, when
the soul is freed from the body, it is not touched by either pleasure or
pain--the effects of acts of religious merit or demerit; and from this
it follows that the disembodied state is not to be accomplished by acts
of religious merit. Nor may it be said that, as other special results
are accomplished by special injunctions, so the disembodied state is to
be accomplished by the injunction of meditation; for that state is
essentially something _not_ to be effected. Thus scriptural texts say,
'The wise man who knows the Self as bodiless among the bodies, as
persisting among non-persisting things, as great and all-pervading; he
does not grieve' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22); 'That person is without breath,
without internal organ, pure, without contact' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2).--
Release which is a bodiless state is eternal, and cannot therefore be
accomplished through meritorious acts.

In agreement herewith Scripture says, 'That which thou seest apart from
merit (dharma) and non-merit, from what is done and not done, from what
exists and what has to be accomplished--tell me that' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 14).--
Consider what follows also. When we speak of something being
accomplished (effected-sādhya) we mean one of four things, viz. its
being originated (utpatti), or obtained (prāpti), or modified (vikriti),
or in some way or other (often purely ceremonial) made ready or fit
(samskriti). Now in neither of these four senses can final Release be
said to be accomplished. It cannot be originated, for being Brahman
itself it is eternal. It cannot be attained: for Brahman, being the Self,
is something eternally attained. It cannot be modified; for that would
imply that like sour milk and similar things (which are capable of
change) it is non-eternal. Nor finally can it be made 'ready' or 'fit.'
A thing is made ready or fit either by the removal of some imperfection
or by the addition of some perfection. Now Brahman cannot be freed from
any imperfection, for it is eternally faultless; nor can a perfection be
added to it, for it is absolutely perfect. Nor can it be improved in the
sense in which we speak of improving a mirror, viz. by polishing it; for
as it is absolutely changeless it cannot become the object of any action,
either of its own or of an outside agent. And, again, actions affecting
the body, such as bathing, do not 'purify' the Self (as might possibly
be maintained) but only the organ of Egoity (ahamkartri) which is the
product of avidyā, and connected with the body; it is this same
ahamkartri also that enjoys the fruits springing from any action upon
the body. Nor must it be said that the Self _is_ the ahamkartri; for the
Self rather is that which is conscious of the ahamkartri. This is the
teaching of the mantras: 'One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other
looks on without eating' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 1); 'When he is in union with
the body, the senses, and the mind, then wise men call him the Enjoyer'
(Ka. Up. I, 3,4); 'The one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the
Self within all beings, watching over all works, dwelling in all beings,
the witness, the perceiver, the only one, free from qualities' (Svet. Up.
VI, 11); 'He encircled all, bright, bodiless, scatheless, without
muscles, pure, untouched by evil' (Īsa. Up. 8).--All these texts
distinguish from the ahamkartri due to Nescience, the true Self,
absolutely perfect and pure, free from all change. Release therefore--
which _is_ the Self--cannot be brought about in any way.--But, if this
is so, what then is the use of the comprehension of the texts?--It is of
use, we reply, in so far as it puts an end to the obstacles in the way
of Release. Thus scriptural texts declare: 'You indeed are our father,
you who carry us from our ignorance to the other shore' (Pra. Up. VI, 8);
'I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes
grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine' (Ch. Up.
VII, 1, 3); 'To him whose faults had thus been rubbed out Sanatkumāra
showed the other bank of Darkness' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). This shows that
what is effected by the comprehension of the meaning of texts is merely
the cessation of impediments in the way of Release. This cessation
itself, although something effected, is of the nature of that kind of
nonexistence which results from the destruction of something existent,
and as such does not pass away.--Texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he
becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Having known him he passes beyond
death' (Svet. Up. III,8), declare that Release follows immediately on
the cognition of Brahman, and thus negative the intervention of
injunctions.--Nor can it be maintained that Brahman is related to action
in so far as constituting the object of the action either of knowledge
or of meditation; for scriptural texts deny its being an object in
either of these senses. Compare 'Different is this from what is known,
and from what is unknown' (Ke. Up. II, 4); 'By whom he knows all this,
whereby should he know him?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'That do thou know as
Brahman, not that on which they meditate as being this' (Ke. Up. II, 4).
Nor does this view imply that the sacred texts have no object at all;
for it is their object to put an end to the view of difference springing
from avidyā. Scripture does not objectivise Brahman in any definite form,
but rather teaches that its true nature is to be non-object, and thereby
puts an end to the distinction, fictitiously suggested by Nescience, of
knowing subjects, acts of knowledge, and objects of knowledge. Compare
the text 'You should not see a seer of seeing, you should not think a
thinker of thought,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 4, 2).--Nor, again, must it be
said that, if knowledge alone puts an end to bondage, the injunctions of
hearing and so on are purposeless; for their function is to cause the
origination of the comprehension of the texts, in so far as they divert
from all other alternatives the student who is naturally inclined to
yield to distractions.--Nor, again, can it be maintained that a
cessation of bondage through mere knowledge is never observed to take
place; for as bondage is something false (unreal) it cannot possibly
persist after the rise of knowledge. For the same reason it is a mistake
to maintain that the cessation of bondage takes place only after the
death of the body. In order that the fear inspired by the imagined snake
should come to an end, it is required only that the rope should be
recognised as what it is, not that a snake should be destroyed. If the
body were something real, its destruction would be necessary; but being
apart from Brahman it is unreal. He whose bondage does not come to an
end, in him true knowledge has not arisen; this we infer from the effect
of such knowledge not being observed in him. Whether the body persist or
not, he who has reached true knowledge is released from that very moment.--
The general conclusion of all this is that, as Release is not something
to be accomplished by injunctions of meditation, Brahman is not proved
to be something standing in a supplementary relation to such injunctions;
but is rather proved by (non-injunctory) texts, such as 'Thou art that';
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'; 'This Self is Brahman.'

This view (the holder of the dhyāna-vidhi theory rejoins) is untenable;
since the cessation of bondage cannot possibly spring from the mere
comprehension of the meaning of texts. Even if bondage were something
unreal, and therefore capable of sublation by knowledge, yet being
something direct, immediate, it could not be sublated by the indirect
comprehension of the sense of texts. When a man directly conscious of a
snake before him is told by a competent by-stander that it is not a
snake but merely a rope, his fear is not dispelled by a mere cognition
contrary to that of a snake, and due to the information received; but
the information brings about the cessation of his fear in that way that
it rouses him to an activity aiming at the direct perception, by means
of his senses, of what the thing before him really is. Having at first
started back in fear of the imagined snake, he now proceeds to ascertain
by means of ocular perception the true nature of the thing, and having
accomplished this is freed from fear. It would not be correct to say
that in this case words (viz. of the person informing) produce this
perceptional knowledge; for words are not a sense-organ, and among the
means of knowledge it is the sense-organs only that give rise to direct
knowledge. Nor, again, can it be pleaded that in the special case of
Vedic texts sentences may give rise to direct knowledge, owing to the
fact that the person concerned has cleansed himself of all imperfection
through the performance of actions not aiming at immediate results, and
has been withdrawn from all outward objects by hearing, reflection, and
meditation; for in other cases also, where special impediments in the
way of knowledge are being removed, we never observe that the special
means of knowledge, such as the sense-organs and so on, operate outside
their proper limited sphere.--Nor, again, can it be maintained that
meditation acts as a means helpful towards the comprehension of texts;
for this leads to vicious reciprocal dependence--when the meaning of the
texts has been comprehended it becomes the object of meditation; and
when meditation has taken place there arises comprehension of the
meaning of the texts!--Nor can it be said that meditation and the
comprehension of the meaning of texts have different objects; for if
this were so the comprehension of the texts could not be a means helpful
towards meditation: meditation on one thing does not give rise to
eagerness with regard to another thing!--For meditation which consists
in uninterrupted remembrance of a thing cognised, the cognition of the
sense of texts, moreover, forms an indispensable prerequisite; for
knowledge of Brahman--the object of meditation--cannot originate from
any other source.--Nor can it be said that that knowledge on which
meditation is based is produced by one set of texts, while that
knowledge which puts an end to the world is produced by such texts as
'thou art that,' and the like. For, we ask, has the former knowledge the
same object as the latter, or a different one? On the former alternative
we are led to the same vicious reciprocal dependence which we noted
above; and on the latter alternative it cannot be shown that meditation
gives rise to eagerness with regard to the latter kind of knowledge.
Moreover, as meditation presupposes plurality comprising an object of
meditation, a meditating subject and so on, it really cannot in any
perceptible way be helpful towards the origination of the comprehension
of the sense of texts, the object of which is the oneness of a Brahman
free from all plurality: he, therefore, who maintains that Nescience
comes to an end through the mere comprehension of the meaning of texts
really implies that the injunctions of hearing, reflection, and
meditation are purposeless.

The conclusion that, since direct knowledge cannot spring from texts,
Nescience is not terminated by the comprehension of the meaning of texts,
disposes at the same time of the hypothesis of the so-called 'Release in
this life' (jīvanmukti). For what definition, we ask, can be given of
this 'Release in this life'?--'Release of a soul while yet joined to a
body'!--You might as well say, we reply, that your mother never had any
children! You have yourself proved by scriptural passages that 'bondage'
means the being joined to a body, and 'release' being free from a body!--
Let us then define jīvanmukti as the cessation of embodiedness, in that
sense that a person, while the appearance of embodiedness persists, is
conscious of the unreality of that appearance.--But, we rejoin, if the
consciousness of the unreality of the body puts an end to embodiedness,
how can you say that jīvanmukti means release of a soul while joined to
a body? On this explanation there remains no difference whatsoever
between 'Release in this life' and Release after death; for the latter
also can only be defined as cessation of the false appearance of
embodiedness.--Let us then say that a person is 'jīvanmukta' when the
appearance of embodiedness, although sublated by true knowledge, yet
persists in the same way as the appearance of the moon being double
persists (even after it has been recognised as false).--This too we
cannot allow. As the sublating act of cognition on which Release depends
extends to everything with the exception of Brahman, it sublates the
general defect due to causal Nescience, inclusive of the particular
erroneous appearance of embodiedness: the latter being sublated in this
way cannot persist. In the case of the double moon, on the other hand,
the defect of vision on which the erroneous appearance depends is _not_
the object of the sublative art of cognition, i.e. the cognition of the
oneness of the moon, and it therefore remains non-sublated; hence the
false appearance of a double moon may persist.--Moreover, the text 'For
him there is delay only as long as he is not freed from the body; then
he will be released' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2), teaches that he who takes his
stand on the knowledge of the Real requires for his Release the putting
off of the body only: the text thus negatives jivanmukti. Āpastamba also
rejects the view of jivanmukti, 'Abandoning the Vedas, this world and
the next, he (the Samnyāsin) is to seek the Self. (Some say that) he
obtains salvation when he knows (the Self). This opinion is contradicted
by the sāstras. (For) if Salvation were obtained when the Self is known,
he should not feel any pain even in this world. Hereby that which
follows is explained' (Dh. Sū. II, 9, 13-17).--This refutes also the
view that Release is obtained through mere knowledge.--The conclusion to
be drawn from all this is that Release, which consists in the cessation
of all Plurality, cannot take place as long as a man lives. And we
therefore adhere to our view that Bondage is to be terminated only by
means of the injunctions of meditation, the result of which is direct
knowledge of Brahman. Nor must this be objected to on the ground that
Release, if brought about by injunctions, must therefore be something
non-eternal; for what is effected is not Release itself, but only the
cessation of what impedes it. Moreover, the injunction does not directly
produce the cessation of Bondage, but only through the mediation of the
direct cognition of Brahman as consisting of pure knowledge, and not
connected with a world. It is this knowledge only which the injunction
produces.--But how can an injunction cause the origination of knowledge?--
How, we ask in return, can, on your view, works not aiming at some
immediate result cause the origination of knowledge?--You will perhaps
reply 'by means of purifying the mind' (manas); but this reply may be
given by me also.--But (the objector resumes) there is a difference. On
my view Scripture produces knowledge in the mind purified by works;
while on your view we must assume that in the purified mind the means of
knowledge are produced by injunction.--The mind itself, we reply,
purified by knowledge, constitutes this means.--How do you know this?
our opponent questions.--How, we ask in return, do you know that the
mind is purified by works, and that, in the mind so purified of a person
withdrawn from all other objects by hearing, reflection and meditation,
Scripture produces that knowledge which destroys bondage?--Through
certain texts such as the following: 'They seek to know him by sacrifice,
by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22); 'He is to be
heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5); 'He
knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9).--Well, we reply,
in the same way our view--viz. that through the injunction of meditation
the mind is cleared, and that a clear mind gives rise to direct
knowledge of Brahman--is confirmed by scriptural texts such as 'He is to
be heard, to be reflected on, to be meditated on' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5);
'He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He is
not apprehended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 8); 'But by a
pure mind' (?); 'He is apprehended by the heart, by wisdom, by the mind'
(Ka. Up. II, 6, 9). Nor can it be said that the text 'not that which
they meditate upon as this' (Ke. Up. I, 4) negatives meditation; it does
not forbid meditation on Brahman, but merely declares that Brahman is
different from the world. The mantra is to be explained as follows:
'What men meditate upon as this world, that is not Brahman; know Brahman
to be that which is not uttered by speech, but through which speech is
uttered.' On a different explanation the clause 'know that to be
Brahman' would be irrational, and the injunctions of meditation on the
Self would--be meaningless.--The outcome of all this is that unreal
Bondage which appears in the form of a plurality of knowing subjects,
objects of knowledge, &c., is put an end to by the injunctions of
meditation, the fruit of which is direct intuitive knowledge of Brahman.

Nor can we approve of the doctrine held by some that there is no
contradiction between difference and non-difference; for difference and
non-difference cannot co-exist in one thing, any more than coldness and
heat, or light and darkness.--Let us first hear in detail what the
holder of this so-called bhedābheda view has to say. The whole universe
of things must be ordered in agreement with our cognitions. Now we are
conscious of all things as different and non-different at the same time:
they are non-different in their causal and generic aspects, and
different in so far as viewed as effects and individuals. There indeed
is a contradiction between light and darkness and so on; for these
cannot possibly exist together, and they are actually met with in
different abodes. Such contradictoriness is not, on the other hand,
observed in the case of cause and effect, and genus and individual; on
the contrary we here distinctly apprehend one thing as having two
aspects--'this jar is clay', 'this cow is short-horned.' The fact is
that experience does not show us anything that has one aspect only. Nor
can it be said that in these cases there is absence of contradiction
because as fire consumes grass so non-difference absorbs difference; for
the same thing which exists as clay, or gold, or cow, or horse, &c., at
the same time exists as jar or diadem, or short-horned cow or mare.
There is no command of the Lord to the effect that one aspect only
should belong to each thing, non-difference to what is non-different,
and difference to what is different.--But one aspect only belongs to
each thing, because it is thus that things are perceived!--On the
contrary, we reply, things have twofold aspects, just because it is _thus_
that they are perceived. No man, however wide he may open his eyes, is
able to distinguish in an object--e.g. a jar or a cow--placed before him
which part is the clay and which the jar, or which part is the generic
character of the cow and which the individual cow. On the contrary, his
thought finds its true expression in the following judgments: 'this jar
is clay'; 'this cow is short-horned.' Nor can it be maintained that he
makes a distinction between the cause and genus as objects of the idea
of persistence, and the effect and individual as objects of the idea of
discontinuance (difference); for as a matter of fact there is no
perception of these two elements in separation. A man may look ever so
close at a thing placed before him, he--will not be able to perceive a
difference of aspect and to point out 'this is the persisting, general,
element in the thing, and that the non-persistent, individual, element.'
Just as an effect and an individual give rise to the idea of one thing,
so the effect plus cause, and the individual _plus_ generic character,
also give rise to the idea of one thing only. This very circumstance
makes it possible for us to recognise each individual thing, placed as
it is among a multitude of things differing in place, time, and
character.--Each thing thus being cognised as endowed with a twofold
aspect, the theory of cause and effect, and generic character and
individual, being absolutely different, is clearly refuted by perception.

But, an objection is raised, if on account of grammatical co-ordination
and the resulting idea of oneness, the judgment 'this pot is clay' is
taken to express the relation of difference, _plus_ non-difference, we
shall have analogously to infer from judgments such as 'I am a man', 'I
am a divine being' that the Self and the body also stand in the
bhedābheda-relation; the theory of the co-existence of difference and
non-difference will thus act like a fire which a man has lit on his
hearth, and which in the end consumes the entire house!--This, we reply,
is the baseless idea of a person who has not duly considered the true
nature of co-ordination as establishing the bhedābheda-relation. The
correct principle is that all reality is determined by states of
consciousness not sublated by valid means of proof. The imagination,
however, of the identity of the Self and the body is sublated by all the
means of proof which apply to the Self: it is in fact no more valid than
the imagination of the snake in the rope, and does not therefore prove
the non-difference of the two. The co-ordination, on the other hand,
which is expressed in the judgment 'the cow is short-horned' is never
observed to be refuted in any way, and hence establishes the bhedābheda-
relation.

For the same reasons the individual soul (jīva) is not absolutely
different from Brahman, but stands to it in the bhedābheda-relation in
so far as it is a part (amsa) of Brahman. Its non-difference from
Brahman is essential (svābhāvika); its difference is due to limiting
adjuncts (aupādhika). This we know, in the first place, from those
scriptural texts which declare non-difference--such as 'Thou art that'
(Ch. Up. VI); 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 23);
'This Self is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); and the passage from the
Brahmasūkta in the Samhitopanishad of the Ātharvanas which, after having
said that Brahman is Heaven and Earth, continues, 'The fishermen are
Brahman, the slaves are Brahman, Brahman are these gamblers; man and
woman are born from Brahman; women are Brahman and so are men.' And, in
the second place, from those texts which declare difference: 'He who,
one, eternal, intelligent, fulfils the desires of many non-eternal
intelligent beings' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); 'There are two unborn, one
knowing, the other not-knowing; one strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I,
9); 'Being the cause of their connexion with him, through the qualities
of action and the qualities of the Self, he is seen as another' (Svet.
Up. V, 12); 'The Lord of nature and the souls, the ruler of the
qualities, the cause of the bondage, the existence and the release of
the samsāra' (Svet. Up. VI, 16); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords
of the organs' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'One of the two eats the sweet fruit,
without eating the other looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'He who dwelling
in the Self (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Embraced by the intelligent Self he
knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
21); 'Mounted by the intelligent Self he goes groaning' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
35); 'Having known him he passes beyond death' (Svet. Up. III, 8).--On
the ground of these two sets of passages the individual and the highest
Self must needs be assumed to stand in the bhedābheda-relation. And
texts such as 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9),
which teach that in the state of Release the individual soul enters into
Brahman itself; and again texts such as 'But when the Self has become
all for him, whereby should he see another' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13), which
forbid us to view, in the state of Release, the Lord as something
different (from the individual soul), show that non-difference is
essential (while difference is merely aupādhika).

But, an objection is raised, the text 'He reaches all desires together
in the wise Brahman,' in using the word 'together' shows that even in
the state of Release the soul is different from Brahman, and the same
view is expressed in two of the Sūtras, viz. IV, 4, 17; 21.--This is not
so, we reply; for the text, 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up.
III, 7, 23), and many similar texts distinctly negative all plurality in
the Self. The Taittirīya-text quoted by you means that man reaches
Brahman with all desires, i.e. Brahman comprising within itself all
objects of desire; if it were understood differently, it would follow
that Brahman holds a subordinate position only. And if the Sūtra IV, 4,
17 meant that the released soul is separate from Brahman it would follow
that it is deficient in lordly power; and if this were so the Sūtra
would be in conflict with other Sūtras such as IV, 4, 1.--For these
reasons, non-difference is the essential condition; while the
distinction of the souls from Brahman and from each other is due to
their limiting adjuncts, i.e. the internal organ, the sense-organs, and
the body. Brahman indeed is without parts and omnipresent; but through
its adjuncts it becomes capable of division just as ether is divided by
jars and the like. Nor must it be said that this leads to a
reprehensible mutual dependence--Brahman in so far as divided entering
into conjunction with its adjuncts, and again the division in Brahman
being caused by its conjunction with its adjuncts; for these adjuncts
and Brahman's connexion with them are due to action (karman), and the
stream of action is without a beginning. The limiting adjuncts to which
a soul is joined spring from the soul as connected with previous works,
and work again springs from the soul as joined to its adjuncts: and as
this connexion with works and adjuncts is without a beginning in time,
no fault can be found with our theory.--The non-difference of the souls
from each other and Brahman is thus essential, while their difference is
due to the Upādhis. These Upādhis, on the other hand, are at the same
time essentially non-distinct and essentially distinct from each other
and Brahman; for there are no other Upādhis (to account for their
distinction if non-essential), and if we admitted such, we should again
have to assume further Upādhis, and so on _in infinitum_. We therefore
hold that the Upādhis are produced, in accordance with the actions of
the individual souls, as essentially non-different and different from
Brahman.

To this bhedābheda view the Pūrvapakshin now objects on the following
grounds:--The whole aggregate of Vedānta-texts aims at enjoining
meditation on a non-dual Brahman whose essence is reality, intelligence,
and bliss, and thus sets forth the view of non-difference; while on the
other hand the karma-section of the Veda, and likewise perception and
the other means of knowledge, intimate the view of the difference of
things. Now, as difference and non-difference are contradictory, and as
the view of difference may be accounted for as resting on beginningless
Nescience, we conclude that universal non-difference is what is real.--
The tenet that difference and non-difference are not contradictory
because both are proved by our consciousness, cannot be upheld. If one
thing has different characteristics from another there is distinction
(bheda) of the two; the contrary condition of things constitutes non-
distinction (abheda); who in his senses then would maintain that these
two-suchness and non-suchness--can be found together? You have
maintained that non-difference belongs to a thing viewed as cause and
genus, and difference to the same viewed as effect and individual; and
that, owing to this twofold aspect of things, non-difference and
difference are not irreconcileable. But that this view also is untenable,
a presentation of the question in definite alternatives will show. Do
you mean to say that the difference lies in one aspect of the thing and
the non-difference in the other? or that difference _and_ non-difference
belong to the thing possessing two aspects?--On the former alternative
the difference belongs to the individual and the non-difference to the
genus; and this implies that there is no one thing with a double aspect.
And should you say that the genus and individual together constitute one
thing only, you abandon the view that it is difference of aspect which
takes away the contradictoriness of difference and non-difference. We
have moreover remarked already that difference in characteristics and
its opposite are absolutely contradictory.--On the second alternative we
have two aspects of different kind and an unknown thing supposed to be
the substrate of those aspects; but this assumption of a triad of
entities proves only their mutual difference of character, not their non-
difference. Should you say that the non-contradictoriness of two aspects
constitutes simultaneous difference and non-difference in the thing
which is their substrate, we ask in return--How can two aspects which
have a thing for their substrate, and thus are different from the thing,
introduce into that thing a combination of two contradictory attributes
(viz. difference and non-difference)? And much less even are they able
to do so if they are viewed as non-different from the thing which is
their substrate. If, moreover, the two aspects on the one hand, and the
thing in which they inhere on the other, be admitted to be distinct
entities, there will be required a further factor to bring about their
difference and non-difference, and we shall thus be led into a _regressus
in infinitum._--Nor is it a fact that the idea of a thing inclusive of
its generic character bears the character of unity, in the same way as
the admittedly uniform idea of an individual; for wherever a state of
consciousness expresses itself in the form 'this is such and such' it
implies the distinction of an attribute or mode, and that to which the
attribute or mode belongs. In the case under discussion the genus
constitutes the mode, and the individual that to which the mode belongs:
the idea does not therefore possess the character of unity.

For these very reasons the individual soul cannot stand to Brahman in
the bhedābheda-relation. And as the view of non-difference is founded on
Scripture, we assume that the view of difference rests on beginningless
Nescience.--But on this view want of knowledge and all the imperfections
springing therefrom, such as birth, death, &c., would cling to Brahman
itself, and this would contradict scriptural texts such as 'He who is
all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'That Self free from all evil' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5). Not so, we reply. For all those imperfections we consider
to be unreal. On your view on the other hand, which admits nothing but
Brahman and its limiting adjuncts, all the imperfections which spring
from contact with those adjuncts must really belong to Brahman. For as
Brahman is without parts, indivisible, the upādhis cannot divide or
split it so as to connect themselves with a part only; but necessarily
connect themselves with Brahman itself and produce their effects on it.--
Here the following explanation may possibly be attempted. Brahman
determined by an upādhi constitutes the individual soul. This soul is of
atomic size since what determines it, viz. the internal organ, is itself
of atomic size; and the limitation itself is without beginning. All the
imperfections therefore connect themselves only with that special place
that is determined by the upādhi, and do not affect the highest Brahman
which is not limited by the upādhi.--In reply to this we ask--Do you
mean to say that what constitutes the atomic individual soul is a part
of Brahman which is limited and cut off by the limiting adjunct; or some
particular part of Brahman which, without being thereby divided off, is
connected with an atomic upādhi; or Brahman in its totality as connected
with an upādhi; or some other intelligent being connected with an upādhi,
or finally the upādhi itself?--The first alternative is not possible,
because Brahman cannot be divided; it would moreover imply that the
individual soul has a beginning, for division means the making of one
thing into two.--On the second alternative it would follow that, as a
part of Brahman would be connected with the upādhi, all the
imperfections due to the upādhis would adhere to that part. And further,
if the upādhi would not possess the power of attracting to itself the
particular part of Brahman with which it is connected, it would follow
that when the upādhi moves the part with, which it is connected would
constantly change; in other words, bondage and release would take place
at every moment. If, on the contrary, the upādhi possessed the power of
attraction, the whole Brahman--as not being capable of division--would
be attracted and move with the upādhi. And should it be said that what
is all-pervading and without parts cannot be attracted and move, well
then the upādhi only moves, and we are again met by the difficulties
stated above. Moreover, if all the upādhis were connected with the parts
of Brahman viewed as one and undivided, all individual souls, being
nothing but parts of Brahman, would be considered as non-distinct. And
should it be said that they are not thus cognised as one because they
are constituted by different parts of Brahman, it would follow that as
soon as the upādhi of one individual soul is moving, the identity of
that soul would be lost (for it would, in successive moments, be
constituted by different parts of Brahman).--On the third alternative
(the whole of) Brahman itself being connected with the upādhi enters
into the condition of individual soul, and there remains no non-
conditioned Brahman. And, moreover, the soul in all bodies will then be
one only.--On the fourth alternative the individual soul is something
altogether different from Brahman, and the difference of the soul from
Brahman thus ceases to depend on the upādhis of Brahman.--And the fifth
alternative means the embracing of the view of the Kārvāka (who makes no
distinction between soul and matter).--The conclusion from all this is
that on the strength of the texts declaring non-difference we must admit
that all difference is based on Nescience only. Hence, Scripture being
an authoritative instrument of knowledge in so far only as it has for
its end action and the cessation of action, the Vedānta-texts must be
allowed to be a valid means of knowledge with regard to Brahman's nature,
in so far as they stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions
of meditation.

This view is finally combated by the Mīmāmsaka. Even if, he says, we
allow the Vedānta-texts to have a purport in so far as they are
supplementary to injunctions of meditation, they cannot be viewed as
valid means of knowledge with regard to Brahman. Do the texts referring
to Brahman, we ask, occupy the position of valid means of knowledge in
so far as they form a syntactic whole with the injunctions of meditation,
or as independent sentences? In the former case the purport of the
syntactic whole is simply to enjoin meditation, and it cannot therefore
aim at giving instruction about Brahman. If, on the other hand, the
texts about Brahman are separate independent sentences, they cannot have
the purport of prompting to action and are therefore devoid of
instructive power. Nor must it be said that meditation is a kind of
continued remembrance, and as such requires to be defined by the object
remembered; and that the demand of the injunction of meditation for
something to be remembered is satisfied by texts such as 'All this is
that Self', 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman,' &c., which set
forth the nature and attributes of Brahman and--forming a syntactic
whole with the injunctions--are a valid means of knowledge with regard
to the existence of the matter they convey. For the fact is that the
demand on the part of an injunction of meditation for an object to be
remembered may be satisfied even by something unreal (not true), as in
the case of injunctions such as 'Let him meditate upon mind as Brahman'
(Ch. Up. III, 18, 1): the real existence of the object of meditation is
therefore not demanded.--The final conclusion arrived at in this
pūrvapaksha is therefore as follows. As the Vedānta-texts do not aim at
prompting to action or the cessation of action; as, even on the
supposition of their being supplementary to injunctions of meditation,
the only thing they effect is to set forth the nature of the object of
meditation; and as, even if they are viewed as independent sentences,
they accomplish the end of man (i.e. please, gratify) by knowledge
merely--being thus comparable to tales with which we soothe children or
sick persons; it does not lie within their province to establish the
reality of an accomplished thing, and hence Scripture cannot be viewed
as a valid means for the cognition of Brahman.

To this primā facie view the Sūtrakāra replies, 'But this on account of
connexion.' 'Connexion' is here to be taken in an eminent sense, as
'connexion with the end of man.' That Brahman, which is measureless
bliss and therefore constitutes the highest end of man, is connected
with the texts as the topic set forth by them, proves Scripture to be a
valid means for the cognition of Brahman. To maintain that the whole
body of Vedānta-texts-which teach us that Brahman is the highest object
to be attained, since it consists of supreme bliss free of all blemish
whatsoever--is devoid of all use and purpose merely because it does not
aim at action or the cessation of action; is no better than to say that
a youth of royal descent is of no use because he does not belong to a
community of low wretches living on the flesh of dogs!

The relation of the different texts is as follows. There are individual
souls of numberless kinds-gods, Asuras, Gandharvas, Siddhas, Vidyādharas,
Kinnaras, Kimpurushas, Yakshas, Rākshasas, Pisākas, men, beasts, birds,
creeping animals, trees, bushes, creepers, grasses and so on--
distinguished as male, female, or sexless, and having different sources
of nourishment and support and different objects of enjoyment. Now all
these souls are deficient in insight into the true nature of the highest
reality, their understandings being obscured by Nescience operating in
the form of beginningless karman; and hence those texts only are fully
useful to them which teach that there exists a highest Brahman--which
the souls in the state of release may cognise as non-different from
themselves, and which then, through its own essential nature, qualities,
power and energies, imparts to those souls bliss infinite and
unsurpassable. When now the question arises--as it must arise--, as to
how this Brahman is to be attained, there step in certain other Vedānta-
texts--such as He who knows Brahman reaches the highest' (Bri. Up. II, 1,
1), and 'Let a man meditate on the Self as his world' (Bri. Up. 1, 4,
15)--and, by means of terms denoting 'knowing' and so on, enjoin
meditation as the means of attaining Brahman. (We may illustrate this
relation existing between the texts setting forth the nature of Brahman
and those enjoining meditation by two comparisons.) The case is like
that of a man who has been told 'There is a treasure hidden in your
house'. He learns through this sentence the existence of the treasure,
is satisfied, and then takes active steps to find it and make it his own.--
Or take the case of a young prince who, intent on some boyish play,
leaves his father's palace and, losing his way, does not return. The
king thinks his son is lost; the boy himself is received by some good
Brahman who brings him up and teaches him without knowing who the boy's
father is. When the boy has reached his sixteenth year and is
accomplished in every way, some fully trustworthy person tells him,
'Your father is the ruler of all these lands, famous for the possession
of all noble qualities, wisdom, generosity, kindness, courage, valour
and so on, and he stays in his capital, longing to see you, his lost
child. Hearing that his father is alive and a man so high and noble, the
boy's heart is filled with supreme joy; and the king also, understanding
that his son is alive, in good health, handsome and well instructed,
considers himself to have attained all a man can wish for. He then takes
steps to recover his son, and finally the two are reunited.

The assertion again that a statement referring to some accomplished
thing gratifies men merely by imparting a knowledge of the thing,
without being a means of knowledge with regard to its real existence--so
that it would be comparable to the tales we tell to children and sick
people--, can in no way be upheld. When it is ascertained that a thing
has no real existence, the mere knowledge or idea of the thing does not
gratify. The pleasure which stories give to children and sick people is
due to the fact that they erroneously believe them to be true; if they
were to find out that the matter present to their thought is untrue
their pleasure would come to an end that very moment. And thus in the
case of the texts of the Upanishads also. If we thought that these texts
do not mean to intimate the real existence of Brahman, the mere idea of
Brahman to which they give rise would not satisfy us in any way.

The conclusion therefore is that texts such as 'That from whence these
beings are born' &c. do convey valid instruction as to the existence of
Brahman, i.e. that being which is the sole cause of the world, is free
from all shadow of imperfection, comprises within itself all auspicious
qualities, such as omniscience and so on, and is of the nature of
supreme bliss.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'connexion'.




5. On account of seeing (i.e. thinking) that which is not founded on
Scripture (i.e. the Pradhāna) is not (what is taught by the texts
referring to the origination of the world).

We have maintained that what is taught by the texts relative to the
origination of the world is Brahman, omniscient, and so on. The present
Sūtra and the following Sūtras now add that those texts can in no way
refer to the Pradhāna and similar entities which rest on Inference only.

We read in the Chāndogya, 'Being only was this in the beginning, one
only, without a second.--It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.--
It sent forth fire' (VI, 2, 1 ff.)--Here a doubt arises whether the
cause of the world denoted by the term 'Being' is the Pradhāna. assumed
by others, which rests on Inference, or Brahman as defined by us.

The Pūrvapakshin maintains that the Pradhāna is meant. For he says, the
Chāndogya text quoted expresses the causal state of what is denoted by
the word 'this', viz. the aggregate of things comprising manifold
effects, such as ether, &c., consisting of the three elements of
Goodness, Passion and Darkness, and forming the sphere of fruition of
intelligent beings. By the 'effected' state we understand the assuming,
on the part of the causal substance, of a different condition; whatever
therefore constitutes the essential nature of a thing in its effected
state the same constitutes its essential nature in the causal state also.
Now the effect, in our case, is made up of the three elements Goodness,
Passion and Darkness; hence the cause is the Pradhāna which consists in
an equipoise of those three elements. And as in this Pradhāna all
distinctions are merged, so that it is pure Being, the Chāndogya text
refers to it as 'Being, one only, without a second.' This establishes
the non-difference of effect and cause, and in this way the promise that
through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known admits of
being fulfilled. Otherwise, moreover, there would be no analogy between
the instance of the lump of clay and the things made of it, and the
matter to be illustrated thereby. The texts speaking of the origination
of the world therefore intimate the Pradhāna taught by the great Sage
Kapila. And as the Chāndogya passage has, owing to the presence of an
initial statement (pratijńā) and a proving instance, the form of an
inference, the term 'Being' means just that which rests on inference,
viz. the Pradhāna.

This primā facie view is set aside by the words of the Sūtra. That which
does not rest on Scripture, i.e. the Pradhāna, which rests on Inference
only, is not what is intimated by the texts referring to the origination
of the world; for the text exhibits the root 'īksh'--which means 'to
think'--as denoting a special activity on the part of what is termed
'Being.' 'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.' 'Thinking'
cannot possibly belong to the non-sentient Pradhāna: the term 'Being'
can therefore denote only the all-knowing highest Person who is capable
of thought. In agreement with this we find that, in all sections which
refer to creation, the act of creation is stated to be preceded by
thought. 'He thought, shall I send forth worlds. He sent forth these
worlds' (Ait. Ār. II, 4, 1, 2); 'He thought he sent forth Prāna' (Pr. Up.
VI, 3); and others.--But it is a rule that as a cause we must assume
only what corresponds to the effect!--Just so; and what corresponds to
the total aggregate of effects is the highest Person, all-knowing, all-
powerful, whose purposes realise themselves, who has minds and matter in
their subtle state for his body. Compare the texts 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He who is all-knowing, all-perceiving' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9);
'He of whom the Unevolved is the body, of whom the Imperishable is the
body, of whom Death is the body, he is the inner Self of all things'
(Subāl. Up. VII).--This point (viz. as to the body of the highest
Person) will be established under Sū. II, 1, 4. The present Sūtra
declares that the texts treating of creation cannot refer to the
Pradhāna; the Sūtra just mentioned will dispose of objections. Nor is
the Pūrvapakshin right in maintaining that the Chāndogya passage is of
the nature of an Inference; for it does not state a reason (hetu--which
is the essential thing in an Inference). The illustrative instance (of
the lump of clay) is introduced merely in order to convince him who
considers it impossible that all things should be known through one
thing--as maintained in the passage 'through which that is heard which
was not heard,' &c.,--that this _is_ possible after all. And the mention
made in the text of 'seeing' clearly shows that there is absolutely no
intention of setting forth an Inference.

Let us assume, then, the Pūrvapakshin resumes, that the 'seeing' of the
text denotes not 'seeing' in its primary, direct sense--such as belongs
to intelligent beings only; but 'seeing' in a secondary, figurative
sense which there is ascribed to the Pradhāna in the same way as in
passages immediately following it is ascribed to fire and water--'the
fire saw'; 'the water saw' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3). The transference, to non-
existent things, of attributes properly belonging to sentient beings is
quite common; as when we say 'the rice-fields look out for rain'; 'the
rain delighted the seeds.'--This view is set aside by the next Sūtra.




6. If it be said that (the word 'seeing') has a secondary (figurative)
meaning; we deny this, on account of the word 'Self' (being applied to
the cause of the world).

The contention that, because, in passages standing close by, the word
'seeing' is used in a secondary sense, the 'seeing' predicated of the
Sat ('Being') is also to be taken in a secondary sense, viz. as denoting
(not real thought but) a certain condition previous to creation, cannot
be upheld; for in other texts met with in the same section (viz. 'All
this has that for its Self; that is the True, that is the Self', Ch. Up.
VI, 8, 7), that which first had been spoken of as Sat is called the
'Self'. The designation 'Self' which in this passage is applied to the
Sat in its relation to the entire world, sentient or non-sentient, is in
no way appropriate to the Pradhāna. We therefore conclude that, as the
highest Self is the Self of fire, water, and earth also, the words fire,
&c. (in the passages stating that fire, &c. thought) denote the highest
Self only. This conclusion agrees with the text 'Let me enter into these
three beings with this living Self, and evolve names and forms', for
this text implies that fire, water, &c. possess substantial being and
definite names only through the highest Self having entered into them.
The thought ascribed in the text to fire, water, &c. hence is thought in
the proper sense, and the hypothesis that, owing to its connexion with
these latter texts, the thought predicated of 'Being' ('it thought,' &c.
) should be thought in a figurative sense only thus lapses altogether.




The next following Sūtra confirms the same view.

7. Because release is taught of him who takes his stand on it.

Svetaketu, who is desirous of final release, is at first--by means of
the clause 'Thou art that'--instructed to meditate on himself as having
his Self in that which truly is; and thereupon the passage 'for him
there is delay' only as long as 'I shall not be released, then I shall
be united' teaches that for a man taking his stand upon that teaching
there will be Release, i.e. union with Brahman--which is delayed only
until this mortal body falls away. If, on the other hand, the text would
teach that the non-intelligent Pradhāna is the general cause, it could
not possibly teach that meditation on this Pradhāna being a man's Self
is the means towards his Release. A man taking his stand on such
meditation rather would on death be united with a non-sentient principle,
according to the scriptural saying, 'According as his thought is in this
world, so will he be when he has departed this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14,
1). And Scripture, which is more loving than even a thousand parents,
cannot possibly teach such union with the Non-sentient, which is
acknowledged to be the cause of all the assaults of suffering in its
threefold form. Moreover, those who hold the theory of the Pradhāna
being the cause of the world do not themselves maintain that he who
takes his stand upon the Pradhāna attains final release.




The Pradhāna is not the cause of the world for the following reason also:

8. And because there is no statement of its having to be set aside.

If the word 'Sat' denoted the Pradhāna as the cause of the world, we
should expect the text to teach that the idea of having his Self in that
'Sat' should be set aside by Svetaketu as desirous of Release; for that
idea would be contrary to Release. So far from teaching this, the text,
however, directly inculcates that notion in the words 'Thou art that.'--
The next Sūtra adds a further reason.




9. And on account of the contradiction of the initial statement.

The Pradhāna's being the cause of the world would imply a contradiction
of the initial statement, viz. that through the knowledge of one thing
all things are to be known. Now, on the principle of the non-difference
of cause and effect, this initial statement can only be fulfilled in
that way that through the knowledge of the 'Sat', which is the cause,
there is known the entire world, whether sentient or non-sentient, which
constitutes the effect. But if the Pradhāna were the cause, the
aggregate of sentient beings could not be known through it--for sentient
beings are not the effect of a non-sentient principle, and there would
thus arise a contradiction.--The next Sūtra supplies a further reason.




10. On account of (the individual soul) going to the Self.

With reference to the 'Sat' the text says, 'Learn from me the true
nature of sleep. When a man sleeps here, he becomes united with the Sat,
he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say he sleeps (svapiti),
because he is gone to his own (sva-apīta)' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1). This text
designates the soul in the state of deep sleep as having entered into,
or being merged or reabsorbed in, the Self. By reabsorption we
understand something being merged in its cause. Now the non-intelligent
Pradhāna cannot be the cause of the intelligent soul; hence the soul's
going to its Self can only mean its going to _the_, i.e. the universal,
Self. The term 'individual soul' (jīva) denotes Brahman in so far as
having an intelligent substance for its body, Brahman itself
constituting the Self; as we learn from the text referring to the
distinction of names and forms. This Brahman, thus called jīva., is in
the state of deep sleep, no less than in that of a general pralaya, free
from the investment of names and forms, and is then designated as mere
'Being' (sat); as the text says, 'he is then united with the Sat'. As
the soul is in the state of deep sleep free from the investment of name
and form, and invested by the intelligent Self only, another text says
with reference to the same state,' Embraced by the intelligent Self he
knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
21). Up to the time of final release there arise in the soul invested by
name and form the cognitions of objects different from itself. During
deep sleep the souls divest themselves of names and forms, and are
embraced by the 'Sat' only; but in the waking state they again invest
themselves with names and forms, and thus bear corresponding distinctive
names and forms. This, other scriptural texts also distinctly declare,
'When a man lying in deep sleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one
with that prāna alone;--from that Self the prānas proceed, each towards
its place' (Kau. Up. 111,3); 'Whatever these creatures are here, whether
a lion or a wolf or a boar or a gnat or a mosquito, that they become
again' (Ch. Up. VI, 9, 3).--Hence the term 'Sat' denotes the highest
Brahman, the all-knowing highest Lord, the highest Person. Thus the
Vrittikāra also says, 'Then he becomes united with the Sat--this is
proved by (all creatures) entering into it and coming back out of it.'
And Scripture also says, 'Embraced by the intelligent Self.'--The next
Sūtra gives an additional reason.




11. On account of the uniformity of view.

'In the beginning the Self was all this; there was nothing else
whatsoever thinking. He thought, shall I send forth worlds? He sent
forth these worlds' (Ait. Ār. II, 4, 1, 1); 'From that Self sprang ether,
from ether air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth' (Taitt.
Up. II, 1); 'From this great Being were breathed forth the Rig-veda,' &c.--
These and similar texts referring to the creation have all the same
purport: they all teach us that the Supreme Lord is the cause of the
world. We therefore conclude that in the Ch. passage also the Sat,
which is said to be the cause of the world, is the Supreme Lord.




12. And because it is directly stated in Scripture.

The text of the same Upanishad directly declares that the being denoted
by the word 'Sat' evolves, as the universal Self, names and forms; is
all-knowing, all-powerful, all-embracing; is free from all evil, &c.;
realises all its wishes and purposes. 'Let me, entering those beings
with this living; Self, evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'All
these creatures have their root in the Sat, they dwell in the Sat, they
rest in the Sat' (VI, 8, 4); 'All this has that for its Self; it is the
True, it is the Self (VI, 8, 7); 'Whatever there is of him here in the
world, and whatever is not, all that is contained within it' (VIII, 1,
3); 'In it all desires are contained. It is the Self free from sin, free
from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose wishes
come true, whose purposes come true' (VIII, 1, 5).--And analogously
other scriptural texts, 'Of him there is no master in the world, no
ruler; not even a sign of him. He is the cause, the lord of the lords of
the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI,
9). 'The wise one who, having created all forms and having given them
names, is calling them by those names' (Taitt. Ar. III, 12, 7); 'He who
entered within is the ruler of all beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ar.
III, 24); 'The Self of all, the refuge, the ruler of all, the Lord of
the souls' (Mahānār. Up. XI); 'Whatsoever is seen or heard in this world,
inside or outside, pervading that all Nārāyana abides' (Mahānār. Up. XI);
'He is the inner Self of all beings, free from all evil, the divine, the
only god Nārāyana.'--These and other texts which declare the world to
have sprung from the highest Lord, can in no way be taken as
establishing the Pradhāna. Hence it remains a settled conclusion that
the highest Person, Nārāyana, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c.,
is the single cause of the whole Universe, and is that Brahman which
these Sūtras point out as the object of enquiry.

For the same reasons the theory of a Brahman, which is nothing but non-
differenced intelligence, must also be considered as refuted by the
Sūtrakāra, with the help of the scriptural texts quoted; for those texts
prove that the Brahman, which forms the object of enquiry, possesses
attributes such as thinking, and so on, in their real literal sense. On
the theory, on the other hand, of a Brahman that is nothing but
distinctionless intelligence even the witnessing function of
consciousness would be unreal. The Sūtras propose as the object of
enquiry Brahman as known from the Vedānta-texts, and thereupon teach
that Brahman is intelligent (Sū. I, 1, 5 ff.) To be intelligent means to
possess the quality of intelligence: a being devoid of the quality of
thought would not differ in nature from the Pradhāna. Further, on the
theory of Brahman being mere non-differenced light it would be difficult
to prove that Brahman is self-luminous. For by light we understand that
particular thing which renders itself, as well as other things, capable
of becoming the object of ordinary thought and speech; but as a thing
devoid of all difference does not, of course, possess these two
characteristics it follows that it is as devoid of intelligence as a pot
may be.--Let it then be assumed that although a thing devoid of all
distinction does not actually possess these characteristics, yet it has
the potentiality of possessing them!--But if it possesses the attribute
of potentiality, it is clear that you abandon your entire theory of a
substance devoid of all distinction!--Let us then admit, on the
authority of Scripture, that the universal substance possesses this one
distinguishing attribute of self-luminousness.--Well, in that case you
must of course admit, on the same authority, all those other qualities
also which Scripture vouches for, such as all-knowingness, the
possession of all powers, and so on.--Moreover, potentiality means
capability to produce certain special effects, and hence can be
determined on the ground of those special effects only. But if there are
no means of knowing these particular effects, there are also no means of
cognising potentiality.--And those who hold the theory of a substance
devoid of all difference, have not even means of proof for their
substance; for as we have shown before, Perception, Inference, Scripture,
and one's own consciousness, are all alike in so far as having for their
objects things marked by difference.--It therefore remains a settled
conclusion that the Brahman to be known is nothing else but the highest
Person capable of the thought 'of becoming many' by manifesting himself
in a world comprising manifold sentient and non-sentient creatures.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'seeing'.

So far the Sūtras have declared that the Brahman which forms the object
of enquiry is different from the non-intelligent Pradhāna, which is
merely an object of fruition for intelligent beings. They now proceed to
show that Brahman--which is antagonistic to all evil and constituted by
supreme bliss--is different from the individual soul, which is subject
to karman, whether that soul be in its purified state or in the impure
state that is due to its immersion in the ocean of manifold and endless
sufferings, springing from the soul's contact with Prakriti (Pradhāna).




13. The Self consisting of Bliss (is the highest Self) on account of
multiplication.

We read in the text of the Taittirīyas, 'Different from this Self, which
consists of Understanding, is the other inner Self which consists of
bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 5).--Here the doubt arises whether the Self
consisting of bliss be the highest Self, which is different from the
inner Self subject to bondage and release, and termed 'jīva.' (i.e.
living self or individual soul), or whether it be that very inner Self,
i.e. the jīva.--It _is_ that inner Self, the Pūrvapakshin contends. For
the text says 'of that this, i.e. the Self consisting of bliss, is the
sārīra Self'; and sārīra means that which is joined to a body, in other
words, the so-called jīva.--But, an objection is raised, the text
enumerates the different Selfs, beginning with the Self consisting of
bliss, to the end that man may obtain the bliss of Brahman, which was,
at the outset, stated to be the cause of the world (II, 1), and in the
end teaches that the Self consisting of bliss is the cause of the world
(II, 6). And that the cause of the world is the all-knowing Lord, since
Scripture says of him that 'he thought,' we have already explained.--
That cause of the world, the Pūrvapakshin rejoins, is not different from
the jīva; for in the text of the Chāndogyas that Being which first is
described as the creator of the world is exhibited, in two passages, in
co-ordination with the jīva ('having entered into them with that living
Self' and 'Thou art that, O Svetaketu'). And the purport of co-
ordination is to express oneness of being, as when we say, 'This person
here is that Devadatta we knew before.' And creation preceded by thought
can very well be ascribed to an intelligent jīva. The connexion of the
whole Taittirīya-text then is as follows. In the introductory clause,
'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest,' the true nature of the jīva,
free from all connexion with matter, is referred to as something to be
attained; and of this nature a definition is given in the words, 'The
True, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman.' The attainment of the jīva in
this form is what constitutes Release, in agreement with the text, 'So
long as he is in the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain; but
when he is free from the body then neither pleasure nor pain touches
him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1). This true nature of the Self, free from all
avidyā, which the text begins by presenting as an object to be attained,
is thereupon declared to be the Self consisting of bliss. In order to
lead up to this--just as a man points out to another the moon by first
pointing out the branch of a tree near which the moon is to be seen--the
text at first refers to the body ('Man consists of food'); next to the
vital breath with its five modifications which is within the body and
supports it; then to the manas within the vital breath; then to the
buddhi within the manas--'the Self consisting of breath'; 'the Self
consisting of mind' (manas); 'the Self consisting of understanding'
(vijńāna). Having thus gradually led up to the jīva, the text finally
points out the latter, which is the innermost of all ('Different from
that is the inner Self which consists of bliss'), and thus completes the
series of Selfs one inside the other. We hence conclude that the Self
consisting of bliss is that same jīva-self which was at the outset
pointed out as the Brahman to be attained.--But the clause immediately
following, 'Brahman is the tail, the support (of the Self of bliss'),
indicates that Brahman is something different from the Self of bliss!--
By no means (the Pūrvapakshin rejoins). Brahman is, owing to its
different characteristics, there compared to an animal body, and head,
wings, and tail are ascribed to it, just as in a preceding clause the
body consisting of food had also been imagined as having head, wings,
and tail--these members not being something different from the body, but
the body itself. Joy, satisfaction, great satisfaction, bliss, are
imagined as the members, non-different from it, of Brahman consisting of
bliss, and of them all the unmixed bliss-constituted Brahman is said to
be the tail or support. If Brahman were something different from the
Self consisting of bliss, the text would have continued, 'Different from
this Self consisting of bliss is the other inner Self--Brahman.' But
there is no such continuation. The connexion of the different clauses
stands as follows: After Brahman has been introduced as the topic of the
section ('He who knows Brahman attains the Highest'), and defined as
different in nature from everything else ('The True, knowledge'), the
text designates it by the term 'Self,' &c. ('From that Self sprang
ether'), and then, in order to make it clear that Brahman is the
innermost Self of all, enumerates the pranamaya and so on--designating
them in succession as more and more inward Selfs--, and finally leads up
to the ānandamaya as the innermost Self('Different from this, &c., is the
Self consisting of bliss'). From all which it appears that the term
'Self' up to the end denotes the Brahman mentioned at the beginning.--
But, in immediate continuation of the clause, 'Brahman is the tail, the
support,' the text exhibits the following sloka: 'Non-existing becomes
he who views Brahman as non-existing; who knows Brahman as existing, him
we know as himself existing.' Here the existence and non-existence of
the Self are declared to depend on the knowledge and non-knowledge of
Brahman, not of the Self consisting of bliss. Now no doubt can possibly
arise as to the existence or non-existence of this latter Self, which,
in the form of joy, satisfaction, &c., is known to every one. Hence the
sloka cannot refer to that Self, and hence Brahman is different from
that Self.--This objection, the Pūrvapakshin rejoins, is unfounded. In
the earlier parts of the chapter we have corresponding slokas, each of
them following on a preceding clause that refers to the tail or support
of a particular Self: in the case, e.g. of the Self consisting of food,
we read, 'This is the tail, the support,' and then comes the sloka,
'From food are produced all creatures,' &c. Now it is evident that all
these slokas are meant to set forth not only what had been called 'tail,'
but the entire Self concerned (Self of food, Self of breath, &c.); and
from this it follows that also the sloka, 'Non-existing becomes he,'
does not refer to the 'tail' only as something other than the Self of
bliss, but to the entire Self of bliss. And there may very well be a
doubt with regard to the knowledge or non-knowledge of the existence of
that Self consisting of unlimited bliss. On your view also the
circumstance of Brahman which forms the tail not being known is due to
its being of the nature of limitless bliss. And should it be said that
the Self of bliss cannot be Brahman because Brahman does not possess a
head and other members; the answer is that Brahman also does not possess
the quality of being a tail or support, and that hence Brahman cannot be
a tail.--Let it then be said that the expression, 'Brahman is the tail,'
is merely figurative, in so far as Brahman is the substrate of all
things imagined through avidyā!--But, the Pūrvapakshin rejoins, we may
as well assume that the ascription to Brahman of joy, as its head and so
on, is also merely figurative, meant to illustrate the nature of Brahman,
i.e. the Self of bliss as free from all pain. To speak of Brahman or the
Self as consisting of bliss has thus the purpose of separating from all
pain and grief that which in a preceding clause ('The True, knowledge,
the Infinite is Brahman') had already been separated from all changeful
material things. As applied to Brahman (or the Self), whose nature is
nothing but absolute bliss, the term 'ānandamaya' therefore has to be
interpreted as meaning nothing more than 'ānanda'; just as prānamaya
means prāna.

The outcome of all this is that the term 'ānandamaya' denotes the true
essential nature--which is nothing but absolute uniform bliss--of the
jiva that appears as distinguished by all the manifold individualising
forms which are the figments of Nescience. The Self of bliss is the jīva
or pratyag-ātman, i.e. the individual soul.

Against this primā facie view the Sūtrakāra contends that the Self
consisting of bliss is the highest Self 'on account of multiplication.'--
The section which begins with the words,'This is an examination of bliss,'
and terminates with the sloka, 'from whence all speech turns back'
(Taitt. Up. II, 8), arrives at bliss, supreme and not to be surpassed,
by successively multiplying inferior stages of bliss by a hundred; now
such supreme bliss cannot possibly belong to the individual soul which
enjoys only a small share of very limited happiness, mixed with endless
pain and grief; and therefore clearly indicates, as its abode, the
highest Self, which differs from all other Selfs in so far as being
radically opposed to all evil and of an unmixed blessed nature. The text
says, 'Different from this Self consisting of understanding (vijńāna)
there is the inner Self consisting of bliss'. Now that which consists of
understanding (vijńāna) is the individual soul (jīva), not the internal
organ (buddhi) only; for the formative element, 'maya,' ('consisting of';
in vijńānamaya) indicates a difference (between vijńāna and vijńānamaya).
The term 'prāna-maya' ('consisting of breath') we explain to mean
'prāna' only, because no other explanation is possible; but as
vijńānamaya may be explained as,--jīva, we have no right to neglect
'maya' as unmeaning. And this interpretation is quite suitable, as the
soul in the states of bondage and release alike is a 'knowing' subject.
That moreover even in 'prānamaya', and so on, the affix 'maya' may be
taken as having a meaning will be shown further on.--But how is it then
that in the sloka which refers to the vijńānamaya, 'Understanding
(vijńāna) performs the sacrifice', the term 'vijńāna' only is used?--The
essential nature, we reply, of the knowing subject is suitably called
'knowledge', and this term is transferred to the knowing subject itself
which is defined as possessing that nature. For we generally see that
words which denote attributes defining the essential nature of a thing
also convey the notion of the essential nature of the thing itself. This
also accounts for the fact that the sloka ('Vijńāna performs the
sacrifice, it performs all sacred acts') speaks of vijńāna as being the
agent in sacrifices and so on; the buddhi alone could not be called an
agent. For this reason the text does not ascribe agency to the other
Selfs (the prānamaya and so on) which are mentioned before the
vijńānamaya; for they are non-intelligent instruments of intelligence,
and the latter only can be an agent. With the same view the text further
on (II, 6), distinguishing the intelligent and the non-intelligent by
means of their different characteristic attributes, says in the end
'knowledge and non-knowledge,' meaning thereby that which possesses the
attribute of knowledge and that which does not. An analogous case is met
with in the so-called antaryāmi-brāhmana (Bri. Up. III. 7). There the
Kānvas read, 'He who dwells in knowledge' (vijńāna; III, 7, 16), but
instead of this the Mādhyandinas read 'he who dwells in the Self,' and
so make clear that what the Kānvas designate as 'knowledge' really is
the knowing Self.--That the word vijńāna, although denoting the knowing
Self, yet has a neuter termination, is meant to denote it as something
substantial. We hence conclude that he who is different from the Self
consisting of knowledge, i.e. the individual Self, is the highest Self
which consists of bliss.

It is true indeed that the sloka, 'Knowledge performs the sacrifice,
'directly mentions knowledge only, not the knowing Self; all the same we
have to understand that what is meant is the latter, who is referred to
in the clause, 'different from this is the inner Self which consists of
knowledge.' This conclusion is supported by the sloka referring to the
Self which consists of food (II, 2); for that sloka refers to food only,
'From food are produced all creatures,' &c., all the same the preceding
clause 'this man consists of the essence of food' does not refer to food,
but to an effect of it which consists of food. Considering all this the
Sūtrakāra himself in a subsequent Sūtra (I, 1, 18) bases his view on the
declaration, in the scriptural text, of difference.--We now turn to the
assertion, made by the Pūrvapakshin, that the cause of the world is not
different from the individual soul because in two Chāndogya passages it
is exhibited in co-ordination with the latter ('having entered into them
with this living Self,' 'Thou art that'); and that hence the
introductory clause of the Taitt. passage ('He who knows Brahman reaches
the Highest') refers to the individual soul--which further on is called
'consisting of bliss,' because it is free from all that is not pleasure.--
This view cannot be upheld; for although the individual soul is
intelligent, it is incapable of producing through its volition this
infinite and wonderful Universe--a process described in texts such as
'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth.--It sent forth fire,' &c.
That even the released soul is unequal to such 'world business' as
creation, two later Sūtras will expressly declare. But, if you deny that
Brahman, the cause of the world, is identical with the individual soul,
how then do you account for the co-ordination in which the two appear in
the Chāndogya texts?--How, we ask in return, can Brahman, the cause of
all, free from all shadow of imperfection, omniscient, omnipotent, &c.
&c., be one with the individual soul, all whose activities--whether it be
thinking, or winking of an eye, or anything else--depend on karman,
which implies endless suffering of various kind?--If you reply that this
is possible if one of two things is unreal, we ask--which then do you
mean to be unreal? Brahman's connexion with what is evil?--or its
essential nature, owing to which it is absolutely good and antagonistic
to all evil?--You will perhaps reply that, owing to the fact of Brahman,
which is absolutely good and antagonistic to all evil, being the
substrate of beginningless Nescience, there presents itself the false
appearance of its being connected with evil. But there you maintain what
is contradictory. On the one side there is Brahman's absolute perfection
and antagonism to all evil; on the other it is the substrate of
Nescience, and thereby the substrate of a false appearance which is
involved in endless pain; for to be connected with evil means to be the
substrate of Nescience and the appearance of suffering which is produced
thereby. Now it is a contradiction to say that Brahman is connected with
all this and at the same time antagonistic to it!--Nor can we allow you
to say that there is no real contradiction because that appearance is
something false. For whatever is false belongs to that group of things
contrary to man's true interest, for the destruction of which the
Vedānta-texts are studied. To be connected with what is hurtful to man,
and to be absolutely perfect and antagonistic to all evil is self-
contradictory.--But, our adversary now rejoins, what after all are we to
do? The holy text at first clearly promises that through the cognition
of one thing everything will be known ('by which that which is not heard
_is_ heard,' &c., Ch. Up. VI, 1, 3); thereupon declares that Brahman is
the sole cause of the world ('Being only this was in the beginning'),
and possesses exalted qualities such as the power of realising its
intentions ('it thought, may I be many'); and then finally, by means of
the co-ordination, 'Thou art that' intimates that Brahman is one with
the individual soul, which we know to be subject to endless suffering!
Nothing therefore is left to us but the hypothesis that Brahman is the
substrate of Nescience and all that springs from it!--Not even for the
purpose, we reply, of making sense of Scripture may we assume what in
itself is senseless and contradictory!--Let us then say that Brahman's
connexion with evil is real, and its absolute perfection unreal!--
Scripture, we reply, aims at comforting the soul afflicted by the
assaults of threefold pain, and now, according to you, it teaches that
the assaults of suffering are real, while its essential perfection and
happiness are unreal figments, due to error! This is excellent comfort
indeed!--To avoid these difficulties let us then assume that both
aspects of Brahman--viz. on the one hand its entering into the
distressful condition of individual souls other than non-differenced
intelligence, and on the other its being the cause of the world, endowed
with all perfections, &c.--are alike unreal!--Well, we reply, we do not
exactly admire the depth of your insight into the connected meaning of
texts. The promise that through the knowledge of one thing everything
will be known can certainly not be fulfilled if everything is false, for
in that case there exists nothing that could be known. In so far as the
cognition of one thing has something real for its object, and the
cognition of all things is of the same kind, and moreover is comprised
in the cognition of one thing; in so far it can be said that everything
is known through one thing being known. Through the cognition of the
real shell we do not cognise the unreal silver of which the shell is the
substrate.--Well, our adversary resumes, let it then be said that the
meaning of the declaration that through the cognition of one thing
everything is to be known is that only non-differenced Being is real,
while everything else is unreal.--If this were so, we rejoin, the text
would not say, 'by which the non-heard is heard, the non-known is
known'; for the meaning of this is, 'by which when heard and known' (not
'known as false') 'the non-heard is heard,' &c. Moreover, if the meaning
were that only the one non-differenced substance understood to be the
cause of the world is real, the illustrative instance, 'As by one lump
of clay everything made of clay is known,' would not be suitable; for
what is meant there is that through the cognition of the (real) lump of
clay its (real) effects are known. Nor must 'you say that in the
illustrative instance also the unreality of the effect is set forth; for
as the person to be informed is not in any way convinced at the outset
that things made of clay are unreal, like the snake imagined in the
rope, it is impossible that such unreality should be referred to as if
it were something well known (and the clause, 'as by one lump of clay,'
&c., undoubtedly _does_ refer to something well known), in order to
render the initial assertion plausible. And we are not aware of any
means of knowledge--assisted or non-assisted by ratiocination--that
would prove the non-reality of things effected, previous to the
cognition produced by texts such as 'That art thou'; a point which will
be discussed at length under II, 1.--'Being only this was in the
beginning, one, without a second'; 'it thought, may I be many, may I
grow forth; it sent forth fire'; 'Let me now enter those three beings
with this living Self and evolve names and forms'; 'All these creatures,
my son, have their root in the True, they dwell in the True, they rest
in the True,' &c.; these passages declare in succession that that which
really is is the Self of this world; that previous to creation there is
no distinction of names and forms; that for the creation of the world
Brahman, termed 'the True' (or 'Real'), requires no other operative
cause but itself; that at the time of creation it forms a resolution,
possible to itself only, of making itself manifold in the form of
endless movable and immovable things; that in accordance with this
resolution there takes place a creation, proceeding in a particular
order, of an infinite number of manifold beings; that by Brahman
entering into all non-intelligent beings with the living soul--which has
its Self in Brahman--there takes place an evolution, infinite in extent,
of all their particular names and forms; and that everything different
from Brahman has its root and abode in that, is moved by that, lives by
that, rests on that. All the different points--to be learned from
Scripture only--which are here set forth agree with what numerous other
scriptural texts teach about Brahman, viz. that it is free from all
evil, devoid of all imperfection, all-knowing, all-powerful; that all
its wishes and purposes realise themselves; that it is the cause of all
bliss; that it enjoys bliss not to be surpassed. To maintain then that
the word 'that,' which refers back to the Brahman mentioned before, i.e.
a Brahman possessing infinite attributes, should aim at conveying
instruction about a substance devoid of all attributes, is as unmeaning
as the incoherent talk of a madman.

The word 'thou' again denotes the individual soul as distinguished by
its implication in the course of transmigratory existence, and the
proper sense of this term also would have to be abandoned if it were
meant to suggest a substance devoid of all distinctions. And that, in
the case of a being consisting of non-differenced light, obscuration by
Nescience would be tantamount to complete destruction, we have already
explained above.--All this being thus, your interpretation would involve
that the proper meaning of the two words 'that' and 'thou'--which refer
to one thing--would have to be abandoned, and both words would have to
be taken in an implied sense only.

Against this the Pūrvapakshin now may argue as follows. Several words
which are applied to one thing are meant to express one sense, and as
this is not possible in so far as the words connote different attributes,
this part of their connotation becomes inoperative, and they denote only
the unity of one substance; implication (lakshanā), therefore, does not
take place. When we say 'blue (is) (the) lotus' we employ two words with
the intention of expressing the unity of one thing, and hence do not aim
at expressing a duality of attributes, viz. the quality of blueness and
the generic character of a lotus. If this latter point was aimed at, it
would follow that the sentence would convey the oneness of the two
aspects of the thing, viz. its being blue and its being a lotus; but
this is not possible, for the thing (denoted by the two terms) is not
characterised by (the denotation of) the word 'lotus,' in so far as
itself characterised by blueness; for this would imply a reciprocal
inherence (samavāya) of class-characteristics and quality [FOOTNOTE 219:1].
What the co-ordination of the two words conveys is, therefore, only the
oneness of a substance characterised by the quality of blueness, and at
the same time by the class attributes of a lotus. In the same way, when
we say 'this (person is) that Devadatta' the co-ordination of the words
cannot possibly mean that Devadatta in so far as distinguished by his
connexion with a past time and a distant place is one with Devadatta in
so far as distinguished by his connexion with the present time and a
near place; what it means to express is only that there is oneness on
the part of a personal substance--which substance is characterised by
connexion with both places and moments of time. It is true indeed that
when we at first hear the one word 'blue' we form the idea of the
attribute of blueness, while, after having apprehended the relation of
co-ordination (expressed in 'blue is the lotus'), this idea no longer
presents itself, for this would imply a contradiction; but all the same
'implication' does not take place. The essence of co-ordination consists,
in all cases, therein that it suppresses the distinguishing elements in
the words co-ordinated. And as thus our explanation cannot be charged
with 'implication,' it cannot be objected to.

All this, we rejoin, is unfounded. What the words in all sentences
whatsoever aim at conveying is only a particular connexion of the things
known to be denoted by those words. Words such as 'blue,' standing in co-
ordination with others, express that some matter possessing the
attribute of blueness, &c., as known from the ordinary use of language,
is connected with some other matter. When, e.g., somebody says 'bring
the blue lotus,' a thing is brought which possesses the attribute of
blueness. And when we are told that 'a herd of elephants excited with
passion lives in the Vindhya-forest,' we again understand that what is
meant is something possessing several attributes denoted by several
words. Analogously we have to understand, as the thing intimated by
Vedānta-texts in the form of coordination, Brahman as possessing such
and such attributes.--It is an error to assume that, where a sentence
aims at setting forth attributes, one attribute is to be taken as
qualifying the thing in so far as qualified by another attribute; the
case rather is that the thing itself is equally qualified by all
attributes. For co-ordination means the application, to one thing, of
several words having different reasons of application; and the effect of
co-ordination is that one and the same thing, because being connected--
positively or negatively--with some attribute other than that which is
conveyed by one word, is also known through other words. As e.g. when it
is said that 'Devadatta (is) dark-complexioned, young, reddish-eyed, not
stupid, not poor, of irreproachable character.' Where two co-ordinate
words express two attributes which cannot exist combined in one thing,
one of the two words is to be taken in a secondary sense, while the
other retains its primary meaning, as e.g. in the case of the sentence,
'The Vāhīka man is an ox.' But in the case of the 'blue lotus' and the
like, where there is nothing contradictory in the connexion of the two
attributes with one thing, co-ordination expresses the fact of one thing
being characterised by two attributes.--Possibly our opponent will here
make the following remark. A thing in so far as defined by its
correlation to some one attribute is something different from the thing
in so far as defined by its correlation to some second attribute; hence,
even if there is equality of case affixes (as in 'nīlam utpalam'), the
words co-ordinated are incapable of expressing oneness, and cannot,
therefore, express the oneness of a thing qualified by several
attributes; not any more than the juxtaposition of two words such as
'jar' and 'cloth'--both having the same case-ending--can prove that
these two things are one. A statement of co-ordination, therefore,
rather aims at expressing the oneness of a thing in that way that it
presents to the mind the essential nature of the thing by means of
(words denoting) its attributes.--This would be so, we reply, if it were
only the fact of a thing's standing in correlation to two attributes
that is in the way of its unity. But this is not the case; for what
stands in the way of such unity is the fact of there being several
attributes which are not capable of being combined in one thing. Such
incapability is, in the case of the generic character of a jar and that
of a piece of cloth, proved by other means of knowledge; but there is no
contradiction between a thing being blue and its being a lotus; not any
more than there is between a man and the stick or the earrings he wears,
or than there is between the colour, taste, smell, &c., of one and the
same thing. Not only is there no contradiction, but it is this very fact
of one thing possessing two attributes which makes possible co-
ordination--the essence of which is that, owing to a difference of
causes of application, several words express one and the same thing. For
if there were nothing but essential unity of being, what reason would
there be for the employment of several words? If the purport of the
attributes were, not to intimate their connexion with the thing, but
merely to suggest the thing itself, one attribute would suffice for such
suggestion, and anything further would be meaningless. If, on the other
hand, it were assumed that the use of a further 'suggestive' attribute
is to bring out a difference of aspect in the thing suggested, such
difference of aspect would imply differentiation in the thing (which you
maintain to be free from all difference).--Nor is there any shade even
of 'implication' in the judgment, 'This person is that Devadatta'; for
there is absolutely no contradiction between the past Devadatta, who was
connected with some distant place, and the present Devadatta, who is
connected with the place before us. For this very reason those who
maintain the permanency of things prove the oneness of a thing related
to two moments of time on the basis of the judgment of recognition
('this is that'); if there really were a contradiction between the two
representations it would follow that all things are (not permanent but)
momentary only. The fact is that the contradiction involved in one thing
being connected with two places is removed by the difference of the
correlative moments of time. We therefore hold to the conclusion that co-
ordinated words denote one thing qualified by the possession of several
attributes.

For this very reason the Vedic passage, 'He buys the Soma by means of a
cow one year old, of a tawny colour, with reddish-brown eyes' (arunayā,
ekahāyanyā, pińgākshyā), must be understood to enjoin that the purchase
is to be effected by means of a cow one year old, possessing the
attributes of tawny colour, &c. This point is discussed Pū. Mī. Sū. III,
1, 12.--The Pūrvapakshin there argues as follows: We admit that the word
'arunayā' ('by means of a tawny one') denotes the quality of tawniness
inclusive of the thing possessing that quality; for qualities as well as
generic character exist only in so far as being modes of substances. But
it is not possible to restrict tawny colour to connexion with a cow one
year old, for the injunction of two different things (which would result
from such restriction; and which would necessitate the sentence to be
construed as----) 'He buys by means of a cow one year old, and that a
red one' is not permissible [FOOTNOTE 222:1]. We must therefore break up
the sentence into two, one of which is constituted by the one word
'arunayā'--this word expressing that tawny colour extends equally to all
the substances enjoined in that section (as instrumental towards the end
of the sacrifice). And the use of the feminine case-termination of the
word is merely meant to suggest a special instance (viz. the cow) of all
the things, of whatever gender, which are enjoined in that section.
Tawniness must not therefore be restricted to the cow one year old only.--
Of this pūrvapaksha the Sūtra disposes in the following words: 'There
being oneness of sense, and hence connexion of substance and quality
with one action, there is restriction.'--The fact that the two words
'arunayā' and 'ekahāyanyā'--which denote a substance, viz. a cow one
year old, distinguished by the quality of possessing tawny colour--stand
in co-ordination establishes that they have one sense; and is the
substance, viz. the cow, and the quality, viz. tawny colour--which the
word 'arunayā' denotes as standing in the relation of distinguishing
attribute and thing distinguished thereby--can thus, without any
contradiction, be connected with the one action called 'the buying of
the Soma', tawny colour is restricted to the cow one year old which is
instrumental with regard to the purchase. If the connexion of tawniness
with the action of buying were to be determined from syntactical
connexion--in the same way as there is made out the connexion of the cow
one year old with that action--then the injunctory sentence would indeed
enjoin two matters (and this would be objectionable). But such is not
the case; for the one word 'arunyā' denotes a substance characterised by
the quality of tawniness, and the co-ordination in which 'arunayā'
stands to 'ekahāyanyā' makes us apprehend merely that the thing
characterised by tawniness also is one year old, but does not make a
special statement as to the connexion of that quality with the thing.
For the purport of co-ordination is the unity of a thing distinguished
by attributes; according to the definition that the application to one
thing of several words possessing different reasons of application,
constitutes co-ordination. For the same reason, the syntactical unity
(ekavākyatvam) of sentences such as 'the cloth is red' follows from all
the words referring to one thing. The function of the syntactical
collocation is to express the connexion of the cloth with the action of
being; the connexion of the red colour (with the cloth) on the other
hand is denoted by the word 'red' only. And what is ascertained from co-
ordination (sāmānādhikaranya) is only that the cloth is a substance to
which a certain colour belongs. The whole matter may, without any
contradiction, be conceived as follows. Several words--having either the
affixes of the oblique cases or that of the nominative case--which
denote one or two or several qualities, present to the mind the idea of
that which is characterised by those qualities, and their co-ordination
intimates that the thing characterised by all those attributes is one
only; and the entire sentence finally expresses the connexion in which
the thing with its attributes stands to the action denoted by the verb.
This may be illustrated by various sentences exhibiting the co-
ordination of words possessing different case-endings, as e.g. 'There
stands Devadatta, a young man of a darkish complexion, with red eyes,
wearing earrings and carrying a stick' (where all the words standing in
apposition to Devadatta have the nominative termination); 'Let him make
a stage curtain by means of a white cloth' (where 'white' and 'cloth'
have instrumental case-endings), &c. &c. We may further illustrate the
entire relation of co-ordinated words to the action by means of the
following two examples: 'Let him boil rice in the cooking-pot by means
of firewood': here we take in simultaneously the idea of an action
distinguished by its connexion with several things. If we now consider
the following amplified sentence, 'Let a skilful cook prepare, in a
vessel of even shape, boiled rice mixed with milk, by means of sticks of
dry khādira wood,' we find that each thing connected with the action is
denoted by an aggregate of co-ordinated words; but as soon as each thing
is apprehended, it is at one and the same moment conceived as something
distinguished by several attributes, and as such connects itself with
the action expressed by the verb. In all this there is no contradiction
whatever.--We must further object to the assertion that a word denoting
a quality which stands in a sentence that has already mentioned a
substance denotes the quality only (exclusive of the substance so
qualified), and that hence the word 'arunayā' also denotes a quality
only. The fact is that neither in ordinary nor in Vedic language we ever
meet with a word which--denoting a quality and at the same time standing
in co-ordination with a word denoting a substance--denotes a _mere_
quality. Nor is it correct to say that a quality-word occurring in a
sentence which has already mentioned a substance denotes a mere quality:
for in a sentence such as 'the cloth (is) white,' where a substance is
mentioned in the first place, the quality-word clearly denotes (not mere
whiteness but) something which possesses the quality of whiteness. When,
on the other hand, we have a collocation of words such as 'patasya
suklah' ('of the cloth'--gen.; 'white' nom.), the idea of a cloth
distinguished by whiteness does not arise; but this is due not to the
fact of the substance being mentioned first, but to the fact of the two
words exhibiting different case-terminations. As soon as we add to those
two words an appropriate third one, e.g. 'bhāgah' (so that the whole
means 'The white part of a cloth'), the co-ordination of two words with
the same case-termination gives rise to the idea of a thing
distinguished by the attribute of whiteness.--Nor can we agree to the
contention that, as the buying of the Soma is exclusively concluded by
the cow one year old (as instrumental in the purchase), the quality of
tawniness (denoted by the word 'arunayā') cannot connect itself with the
action expressed by the verb; for a word that denotes a quality and
stands in co-ordination with a word denoting a substance which has no
qualities opposed in nature to that quality, denotes a quality abiding
in that substance, and thus naturally connects itself with the action
expressed by the verb. And since, as shown, the quality of tawniness
connects itself with its substance (the cow) on the mere basis of the
form of the words, it is wrong (on the part of the Pūrvapakshin to
abandon this natural connexion and) to establish their connexion on the
ground of their being otherwise incapable of serving as means of the
purchase.

All this confirms our contention, viz. that the co-ordination of 'thou'
and 'that' must be understood to express oneness, without, at the same
time, there being given up the different attributes denoted by the two
words. This however is not feasible for those who do not admit a highest
Self free from all imperfection and endowed with all perfections, and
different from that intelligent soul which is conditioned by Nescience,
involved in endless suffering and undergoing alternate states of purity
and impurity.--But, an objection is raised, even if such a highest Self
be acknowledged, it would have to be admitted that the sentence aims at
conveying the oneness of that which is distinguished by the different
attributes denoted by the words co-ordinated, and from this it follows
that the highest Self participates in all the suffering expressed by the
word 'thou'!--This is not so, we reply; since the word 'thou' also
denotes the highest Self, viz. in so far as it is the inner Ruler
(antaryāmin) of all souls.--The connected meaning of the text is as
follows. That which is denoted as 'Being,' i.e. the highest Brahman
which is the cause of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, &c.,
resolved 'to be many'; it thereupon sent forth the entire world,
consisting of fire, water, &c.; introduced, in this world so sent forth,
the whole mass of individual souls into different bodies divine, human,
&c., corresponding to the desert of each soul--the souls thus
constituting the Self of the bodies; and finally, itself entering
according to its wish into these souls--so as to constitute their inner
Self--evolved in all these aggregates, names and forms, i.e. rendered
each aggregate something substantial (vastu) and capable of being
denoted by a word. 'Let me enter into these beings with this living Self
(jīvena ātmana) means 'with this living _me_,' and this shows the living
Self, i.e. the individual soul to have Brahman for its Self. And that
this having Brahman for its Self means Brahman's being the inner Self of
the soul (i.e. the Self inside the soul, but not identical with it),
Scripture declares by saying that Brahman entered into it. This is
clearly stated in the passage Taitt. Up. II, 6, 'He sent forth all this,
whatever there is. Having sent forth he entered into it. Having entered
it he became _sat_ and _tyat_.' For here 'all this' comprises beings
intelligent as well as non-intelligent, which afterwards are
distinguished as _sat_ and _tyat_, as knowledge (vijńāna) and non-
knowledge. Brahman is thus said to enter into intelligent beings also.
Hence, owing to this evolution of names and forms, all words denote the
highest Self distinguished by non-intelligent matter and intelligent
souls.--Another text, viz. Ch. Up. VI, 8, 7,'All this has its Self in
that,' denotes by 'all this' the entire world inclusive of intelligent
souls, and says that of this world that (i.e. Brahman) is the Self.
Brahman thus being the Self with regard to the whole universe of matter
and souls, the universe inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of
Brahman.--Other scriptural texts teach the same doctrine; cp. 'Entered
within, the ruler of beings, the Self of all' (Taitt. Ār. III, 24);'He
who dwelling in the earth is within the earth--whose body is the earth,'
& c., up to 'he who dwelling within the Self is within the Self, whom
the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the Self
from within, he is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal' (Bri. Up.
III, 7, 3-22; Mādhyand. Sā.); 'He who moves within the earth, of whom
the earth is the body, &c.--who moves within the Imperishable, of whom
the Imperishable is the body, whom the Imperishable does not know; he
the inward ruler of all beings, free from evil, the divine, the one god,
Nārayana' (Subā. Up. VII). All these texts declare that the world
inclusive of intelligent souls is the body of the highest Self, and the
latter the Self of everything. Hence those words also that denote
intelligent souls designate the highest Self as having intelligent souls
for his body and constituting the Self of them; in the same way as words
denoting non-sentient masses of matter, such as the bodies of gods, men,
& c., designate the individual souls to which those bodies belong. For
the body stands towards the embodied soul in the relation of a mode
(prakāra); and as words denoting a mode accomplish their full function
only in denoting the thing to which the mode belongs, we must admit an
analogous comprehensiveness of meaning for those words which denote a
body. For, when a thing is apprehended under the form 'this is such,'
the element apprehended as 'such' is what constitutes a mode; now as
this element is relative to the thing, the idea of it is also relative
to the thing, and finds its accomplishment in the thing only; hence the
word also which expresses the mode finds its accomplishment in the
thing. Hence words such as 'cow', 'horse', 'man', which denote a mode,
viz. a species, comprise in their meaning also that mass of matter which
exhibits the characteristics of the species, and as that mass of matter
constitutes the body and therefore is a mode of a soul, and as that soul
again, so embodied, is a mode of the highest Self; it follows that all
these words extend in their signification up to the highest Self. The
meaning of all words then is the highest Self, and hence their co-
ordination with words directly denoting that highest Self is a primary
(not merely 'implied') one.

But, an objection is raised, we indeed observe that words denoting
species or qualities stand in co-ordination to words denoting substances,
'the ox is short-horned,' 'the sugar is white'; but where substances
appear as the modes of other substances we find that formative affixes
are used, 'the man is dandin, kundalin' (bearing a stick; wearing
earrings).--This is not so, we reply. There is nothing to single out
either species, or quality, or substance, as what determines co-
ordination: co-ordination disregards such limitations. Whenever a _thing_
(whether species, or quality, or substance) has existence as a _mode_
only--owing to its proof, existence and conception being inseparably
connected with something else--the words denoting it, as they designate
a substance characterised by the attribute denoted by them,
appropriately enter into co-ordination with other words denoting the
same substance as characterised by other attributes. Where, on the other
hand, a substance which is established in separation from other things
and rests on itself, is assumed to stand occasionally in the relation of
mode to another substance, this is appropriately expressed by the use of
derived forms such as 'dandin, kundalin.' Hence such words as 'I,' 'thou,'
&c., which are different forms of appellation of the individual soul,
at bottom denote the highest Self only; for the individual souls
together with non-sentient matter are the body--and hence modes--of the
highest Self. This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination 'Thou
art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest
Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest Self, not any
more than infancy, youth, and other attributes of the material body
touch the individual soul. Hence, in the co-ordination 'Thou art that,'
the word 'that' denotes the highest Brahman which is the cause of the
world, whose purposes come true, which comprises within itself all
blessed qualities, which is free from all shadow of evil; while the word
'thou' denotes the same highest Self in so far as having for its body
the individual souls together with their bodies. The terms co-ordinated
may thus be taken in their primary senses; there is no contradiction
either with the subject-matter of the section, or with scripture in
general; and not a shadow of imperfection such as Nescience, and so on,
attaches to Brahman, the blameless, the absolutely blessed. The co-
ordination with the individual soul thus proves only the difference of
Brahman from the soul, which is a mere mode of Brahman; and hence we
hold that different from the Self consisting of knowledge, i.e. the
individual soul, is the Self consisting of bliss, i.e. the highest Self.

Nor is there any force in the objection that as the Self of bliss is
said to be 'sārira,' i.e. embodied-viz. in the clause 'of him the
embodied Self is the same' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, 6)--it cannot be different
from the individual soul. For throughout this section the recurring
clause 'of him the embodied Self is the same as of the preceding one,'
refers to the highest Self, calling that the 'embodied' one. The clause
'From that same Self sprang ether' (II, 1) designates the highest
Brahman-which is different from the individual soul and is introduced as
the highest cause of all things created--as the 'Self'; whence we
conclude that all things different from it--from ether up to the Self of
food constitute its body. The Subāla-upanishad moreover states quite
directly that all beings constitute the body of the highest Self: 'He of
whom the earth is the body, of whom water is the body, of whom fire is
the body, of whom wind is the body, of whom ether is the body, of whom
the Imperishable is the body, of whom Death is the body, he the inner
Self of all, the divine one, the one god Nārāyana.' From this it follows
that what constitutes the embodied Self of the Self of food is nothing
else but the highest Self referred to in the clause 'From that same Self
sprang ether.' When, then, the text further on says with regard to the
Self of breath, 'of him the embodied Self is the same as of the
preceding one' (II, 3), the meaning can only be that what constitutes
the embodied Self of the 'preceding' Self of food, viz. the highest Self
which is the universal cause, is also the embodied Self of the Self
consisting of breath. The same reasoning holds good with regard to the
Self consisting of mind and the Self consisting of knowledge. In the
case, finally, of the Self consisting of bliss, the expression 'the
same' (esha eva) is meant to convey that that Self has its Self in
nothing different from itself. For when, after having understood that
the highest Self is the embodied Self of the vijńānamaya also, we are
told that the embodied Self of that vijńānamaya is also the embodied
Self of the ānandamaya, we understand that of the ānandamaya--which we
know to be the highest Self on the ground of 'multiplication'--its own
Self is the Self. The final purport of the whole section thus is that
everything different from the highest Self, whether of intelligent or
non-intelligent nature, constitutes its body, while that Self alone is
the non-conditioned embodied Self. For this very reason competent
persons designate this doctrine which has the highest Brahman for its
subject-matter as the 'sārīraka,' i. e. the doctrine of the 'embodied'
Self.--We have thus arrived at the conclusion that the Self of bliss is
something different from the individual Self, viz. the highest Self.

Here the Pūrvapakshin raises the following objection.--The Self
consisting of bliss (ānandamaya) is not something different from the
individual soul, because the formative element--maya denotes something
made, a thing effected. That this is the meaning of--maya in ānandamaya
we know from Pānini IV, 3, 144.--But according to Pā. V, 4, 21,--maya
has also the sense of 'abounding in'; as when we say 'the sacrifice is
annamaya,' i.e. abounds in food. And this may be its sense in
'ānandamaya' also!--Not so, the Pūrvapakshin replies. In 'annamaya,' in
an earlier part of the chapter,--maya has the sense of 'made of',
'consisting of'; and for the sake of consistency, we must hence ascribe
the same sense to it in 'ānandamaya.' And even if, in the latter word,
it denoted abundance, this would not prove that the ānandamaya is other
than the individual soul. For if we say that a Self 'abounds' in bliss,
this implies that with all this bliss there is mixed some small part of
pain; and to be 'mixed with pain' is what constitutes the character of
the individual soul. It is therefore proper to assume, in agreement with
its previous use, that 'ānandamaya' means 'consisting of bliss.' In
ordinary speech as well as in Vedic language (cp. common words such as
'mrinmaya,' 'hiranmaya'; and Vedic clauses such as 'parnamayijuhūh')
-maya as a rule means 'consisting of,' and this meaning hence presents
itself to the mind first. And the individual soul _may_ be denoted as
'made of bliss'; for in itself it is of the essence of bliss, and its
Samsāra state therefore is something 'made of bliss.' The conclusion
therefore is that, owing to the received meaning of -maya, the
ānandamaya is none other than the individual soul.--To this primā facie
view the next Sūtra refers and refutes it.

[FOOTNOTE 219:1. I.e. we should not in that case be able to decide
whether the quality (i.e., here, the blueness) inheres in the class (i.e.,
here, the lotus), or vice versa.]

[FOOTNOTE 222:1. For it would imply so-called vākyabheda, 'split of the
sentence,' which arises when one injunctory clause is made to enjoin two
different things.]




14. If, on account of its being a word denoting an effect, (ānandamaya
be said) not (to denote the highest Self); (we say) no, on account of
abundance.

We deny the conclusion of the Pūrvapakshin, on the ground of there being
abundance of bliss in the highest Brahman, and 'abundance' being one of
the possible meanings of -maya.--Since bliss such as described in the
Taitt. Up.--bliss which is reached by successively multiplying by
hundred all inferior kinds of bliss--cannot belong to the individual
soul, we conclude that it belongs to Brahman; and as Brahman cannot be
an effect, and as -maya, may have the sense of 'abounding in,' we
conclude that the ānandamaya is Brahman itself; inner contradiction
obliging us to set aside that sense of -maya which is recommended by
regard to 'consequence' and frequency of usage. The regard for
consistency, moreover, already has to be set aside in the case of the
'prānamaya'; for in that term -maya cannot denote 'made of.' The
'prānamaya' Self can only be called by that name in so far as air with
its five modifications has (among others) the modification called prāna,
i.e. breathing out, or because among the five modifications or functions
of air prāna is the 'abounding,' i.e. prevailing one.--Nor can it be
truly said that -maya is but rarely used in the sense of 'abounding in':
expressions such as 'a sacrifice abounding in food' (annamaya), 'a
procession with many carriages' (sakatamayī), are by no means uncommon.--
Nor can we admit that to call something 'abounding in bliss' implies the
presence of _some_ pain. For 'abundance' precludes paucity on the part
of that which is said to abound, but does not imply the presence of what
is contrary. The presence or absence of what is contrary has to be
ascertained by other means of proof; and in our case we do ascertain the
absence of what is contrary to bliss by such means, viz. the clause
'free from evil,' &c. Abundance of bliss on the part of Brahman
certainly implies a relation to paucity on the part of some other bliss;
and in accordance with this demand the text says 'That is one measure of
human bliss,' &c. (II, 8, 1). The bliss of Brahman is of measureless
abundance, compared to the bliss of the individual soul.--Nor can it be
maintained that the individual soul may be viewed as being an effect of
bliss. For that a soul whose essential nature is knowledge and bliss
should in any way be changed into something else, as a lump of clay is
made into a pot, is an assumption contradicted by all scripture, sacred
tradition, and reasoning. That in the Samsāra state the soul's bliss and
knowledge are contracted owing to karman will be shown later on.--The
Self of bliss therefore is other than the individual soul; it is Brahman
itself.

A further reason for this conclusion is supplied by the next Sūtra.




15. And because he is declared to be the cause of thatra.

'For who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed
not in the ether? He alone causes bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This means--
He alone is the cause of bliss on the part of the individual souls.--
Some one is here designated as the cause of bliss enjoyed by the souls;
and we thus conclude that the causer of bliss, who must be other than
the souls to which bliss is imparted, is the highest Self abounding in
bliss.

In the passage quoted the term 'bliss' denotes him who abounds in bliss,
as will be shown later on.--A further reason is given in the next Sūtra.




16. And because that (Brahman) which is referred to in the mantra is
declared (to be the ānandamaya).

That Brahman which is described in the mantra, 'True Being, knowledge,
infinite is Biahman,' is proclaimed as the Self abounding in bliss. And
that Brahman is the highest Brahman, other than the individual soul; for
the passage 'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest' refers to Brahman
as something to be obtained by the individual soul, and the words 'On
this the following verse is recorded' show that the verse is related to
that same Brahman. The mantra thus is meant to render clear the meaning
of the Brāhmana passage. Now the Brahman to be reached by the meditating
Devotee must be something different from him. The same point is rendered
clear by all the following Brāhmana passages and mantras: 'from that
same Self sprang ether,' and so on. The Self abounding in bliss
therefore is other than the individual soul.

Here an opponent argues as follows:--We indeed must acknowledge that the
object to be reached is something different from the meditating Devotee;
but the fact is that the Brahman described in the mantra does not
substantially differ from the individual soul; that Brahman is nothing
but the soul of the Devotee in its pure state, consisting of mere non-
differenced intelligence, free from all shade of Nescience. To this pure
condition it is reduced in the mantra describing it as true Being,
knowledge, infinite. A subsequent passage, 'that from which all speech,
with the mind, turns away, unable to reach it' (II. 9), expresses this
same state of non-differentiation, describing it as lying beyond mind
and speech. It is this therefore to which the mantra refers, and the
Self of bliss is identical with it.--To this view the next Sūtra replies.




17. Not the other, on account of impossibility.

The other than the highest Self, i.e. the one called jīva, even in the
state of release, is not that Self which the mantra describes; for this
is not possible. For to a Self of that kind unconditioned intelligence
(such as is, in the mantra, ascribed to Brahman; cp. the term
'vipaskitā') cannot belong. Unconditioned intelligence is illustrated by
the power of all one's purposes realising themselves; as expressed in
the text 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth.' Intelligence
(vipaskittvam, i.e. power of insight into various things) does indeed
belong to the soul in the state of release; but as in the Samsāra state
the same soul is devoid of such insight, we cannot ascribe to it non-
conditioned intelligence. And if the released soul is viewed as being
mere non-differenced intelligence, it does not possess the capacity of
seeing different things, and hence cannot of course possess vipaskittva
in the sense stated above. That, however, the existence of a substance
devoid of all difference cannot be proved by any means of knowledge, we
have already shown before. Again, if the clause 'from whence speech
returns,' &c., were meant to express that speech and mind return from
Brahman, this could not mean that the Real is devoid of all difference,
but only that mind and speech are not means for the knowledge of Brahman.
And from this it would follow that Brahman is something altogether empty,
futile. Let us examine the context. The whole section, beginning with
'He who knows Brahman reaches Brahman,' declares that Brahman is all-
knowing, the cause of the world, consisting of pure bliss, the cause of
bliss in others; that through its mere wish it creates the whole
universe comprising matter and souls; that entering into the universe of
created things it constitutes their Self; that it is the cause of fear
and fearlessness; that it rules Vāyu Āditya and other divine beings;
that its bliss is ever so much superior to all other bliss; and many
other points. Now, all at once, the clause 'from whence speech returns'
is said to mean that neither speech nor mind applies to Brahman, and
that thus there are no means whatever of knowing Brahman! This is idle
talk indeed! In the clause '(that) from which speech returns,' the
relative pronoun 'from which' denotes bliss; this bliss is again
explicitly referred to in the clause 'knowing the bliss of Brahman'--the
genitive 'of Brahman' intimating that the bliss belongs to Brahman; what
then could be the meaning of this clause which distinctly speaks of a
knowledge of Brahman, if Brahman had at the same time to be conceived as
transcending all thought and speech? What the clause really means rather
is that if one undertakes to state the definite amount of the bliss of
Brahman--the superabundance of which is illustrated by the successive
multiplications with hundred--mind and speech have to turn back
powerless, since no such definite amount can be assigned. He who knows
the bliss of Brahman as not to be defined by any definite amount, does
not fear anything.--That, moreover, the all-wise being referred to in
the mantra is other than the individual soul in the state of release, is
rendered perfectly clear by what--in passages such as 'it desired,' &c.--
is said about its effecting, through its mere volition, the origination
and subsistence of the world, its being the inner Self of the world, and
so on.




18. And on account of the declaration of difference.

The part of the chapter--beginning with the words 'From that same Self
there sprang ether'--which sets forth the nature of the Brahman referred
to in the mantra, declares its difference from the individual soul, no
less than from the Selfs consisting of food, breath, and mind, viz. in
the clause 'different from this which consists of knowledge, is the
other inner Self which consists of bliss.'--Through this declaration of
difference from the individual soul we know that the Self of bliss
referred to in the mantra is other than the individual soul.




19. And on account of desire, there is no regard to what is inferred (i.
e. matter).

In order that the individual soul which is enthralled by Nescience may
operate as the cause of the world, it must needs be connected with non-
sentient matter, called by such names as pradhāna, or ānumānika (that
which is inferred). For such is the condition for the creative energy of
Brahmā and similar beings. Our text, on the other hand, teaches that the
creation of the aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things results
from the mere wish of a being free from all connexion with non-sentient
matter, 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth;' 'He sent forth
all, whatever there is' (Taitt. Up. II, 6). We thus understand that that
Self of bliss which sends forth the world does not require connexion
with non-sentient matter called ānumānika, and hence conclude that it is
other than the individual soul.--A further reason is stated in the next
Sūtra.




20. And Scripture teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul)
with that (i.e. bliss) in that (i.e. the ānandamaya).

'A flavour he is indeed; having obtained a flavour this one enjoys
bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This text declares that this one, i.e. the so-
called individual soul, enjoys bliss through obtaining the ānandamaya,
here called 'flavour.' Now to say that any one is identical with that by
obtaining which he enjoys bliss, would be madness indeed.--It being thus
ascertained that the Self of bliss is the highest Brahman, we conclude
that in passages such as 'if that bliss were not in the ether' (Taitt.
Up. II, 7). and 'knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28), the
word 'ānanda' denotes the 'ānandamaya'; just as vijńāna means the
vijńānamaya. It is for the same reason (viz. of ānanda meaning the same
as ānandamaya) that the clause 'he who knows the bliss of Brahman'
exhibits Brahman as being connected with ānanda, and that the further
clause 'he who knows this reaches the Self of bliss,' declares the
reaching of the Self of bliss to be the fruit of the knowledge of bliss.
In the subsequent anuvāka also, in the clauses 'he perceived that food
is Brahman,' 'he perceived that breath is Brahman,' &c. (III, i; 2, &c.),
the words 'food,' 'breath,' and so on, are meant to suggest the Self
made of food, the Self made of breath, &c., mentioned in the preceding
anuvāka; and hence also in the clause 'he perceived that bliss is
Brahman,' the word 'bliss' must be understood to denote the Self of
bliss. Hence, in the same anuvāka, the account of the fate after death
of the man who knows concludes with the words 'having reached the Self
of bliss' (III, 10,5). It is thus finally proved that the highest
Brahman--which in the previous adhikarana had to be shown to be other
than the so-called Pradhāna--is also other than the being called
individual soul.--This concludes the topic of the ānandamaya.

A new doubt here presents itself.--It must indeed be admitted that such
individual souls as possess only a moderate degree of merit are unable
to accomplish the creation of the world by their mere wish, to enjoy
supreme bliss, to be the cause of fearlessness, and so on; but why
should not beings like Āditya and Prajāpati, whose merit is
extraordinarily great, be capable of all this?--Of this suggestion the
next Sūtra disposes.




21. The one within (the sun and the eye); on account of his qualities
being declared.

It is said in the Chāndogya: 'Now that person bright as gold, who is
seen within the sun, with beard bright as gold and hair bright as gold,
golden altogether to the very tips of his nails, whose eyes are like
blue lotus; his name is Ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He
also who knows this rises above all evil. Rik and Sāman are his joints.-
So much with reference to the devas.--Now with reference to the body.--
Now that person who is seen within the eye, he is Rik, he is Sāman,
Uktha, Yajus, Brahman. The form of this person (in the eye) is the same
as of that person yonder (in the sun), the joints of the one are the
joints of the other, the name of the one is the--name of the other' (Ch.
Up. I, 7).--Here there arises the doubt whether that person dwelling
within the eye and the sun be the individual soul called Āditya, who
through accumulation of religious merit possesses lordly power, or the
highest Self other than that soul.

That individual soul of high merit, the Pūrvapakshin maintains. For the
text states that that person has a body, and connexion with a body
belongs to individual souls only, for it is meant to bring the soul into
contact with pleasure and pain, according to its deserts. It is for this
reason that Scripture describes final Release where there is no
connexion with works as a state of disembodiedness. 'So long as he is in
the body he cannot get free from pleasure and pain. But when he is free
from the body, then neither pleasure nor pain touches him' (Ch. Up. VIII,
12, 1). And a soul of transcendent merit may possess surpassing wisdom
and power, and thus be capable of being lord of the worlds and the
wishes (I, 6, 8). For the same reason such a soul may be the object of
devout meditation, bestow rewards, and by being instrumental in
destroying evil, be helpful towards final release. Even among men some
are seen to be of superior knowledge and power, owing to superior
religious merit; and this holds good with regard to the Siddhas and
Gandharvas also; then with regard to the devas; then with regard to the
divine beings, beginning with Indra. Hence, also, one among the divine
beings, beginning with Brahmā, may in each kalpa reach, through a
particularly high degree of merit, vast lordly power and thus effect the
creation of the world, and so on. On this supposition the texts about
that which constitutes the cause of the world and the inward Self of the
world must also be understood to refer to some such soul which, owing to
superiority of merit, has become all-knowing and all-powerful. A so-
called highest Self, different from the individual souls, does not
therefore exist. Where the texts speak of that which is neither coarse
nor fine nor short, &c., they only mean to characterise the individual
soul; and those texts also which refer to final Release aim only at
setting forth the essential nature of the individual soul and the means
of attaining that essential nature.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The person who is
perceived within the sun and within the eye, is something different from
the individual soul, viz. the highest Self; because there are declared
qualities belonging to that. The text ascribes to him the quality of
having risen above, i.e. being free from all evil, and this can belong
to the highest Self only, not to the individual soul. For to be free
from all evil means to be free from all influence of karman, and this
quality can belong to the highest Self only, differing from all
individual souls which, as is shown by their experience of pleasure and
pain, are in the bonds of karman. Those essential qualities also which
presuppose freedom from all evil (and which are mentioned in other Vedic
passages), such as mastery over all worlds and wishes, capability of
realising one's purposes, being the inner Self of all, &c., belong to
the highest Self alone. Compare passages such as 'It is the Self free
from evil, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and
thirst, whose wishes come true, whose purposes come true' (Ch. Up. VIII,
1, 5); and 'He is the inner Self of all, free from evil, the divine one,
the one god Nārāyana' (Subā. Up.). Attributes such as the attribute of
being the creator of the whole universe--which presupposes the power of
realising one's wishes--(cp. the passage 'it desired, may I be many');
the attribute of being the cause of fear and fearlessness; the attribute
of enjoying transcending bliss not limited by the capabilities of
thought and speech and the like, are essential characteristics of that
only which is not touched by karman, and they cannot therefore belong to
the individual soul.--Nor is there any truth in the contention that the
person within the sun, &c., cannot be a being different from individual
souls because it possesses a body. For since a being which possesses the
power of realising all its desires can assume a body through its mere
wish, it is not generally true that embodiedness proves dependence on
karman.--But, it may be said, by a body we understand a certain
combination of matter which springs from the primal substance (prakriti)
with its three constituents. Now connexion with such a body cannot
possibly be brought about by the wish of such souls even as are free
from all evil and capable of realising their desires; for such connexion
would not be to the soul's benefit. In the case, on the other hand, of a
soul subject to karman and not knowing its own essential nature, such
connexion with a body necessarily takes place in order that the soul may
enjoy the fruit of its actions--quite apart from the soul's desire.--
Your objection would be well founded, we reply, if the body of the
highest Self were an effect of Prakriti with its three constituents; but
it is not so, it rather is a body suitable to the nature and intentions
of that Self. The highest Brahman, whose nature is fundamentally
antagonistic to all evil and essentially composed of infinite knowledge
and bliss--whereby it differs from all other souls--possesses an
infinite number of qualities of unimaginable excellence, and,
analogously, a divine form suitable to its nature and intentions, i.e.
adorned with infinite, supremely excellent and wonderful qualities--
splendour, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, loveliness, youthfulness, and
so on. And in order to gratify his devotees he individualises that form
so as to render it suitable to their apprehension--he who is a boundless
ocean as it were of compassion, kindness and lordly power, whom no
shadow of evil may touch---he who is the highest Self, the highest
Brahman, the supreme soul, Nārāyana!--Certain texts tell us that the
highest Brahman is the sole cause of the entire world: 'From which these
beings originate' (Taitt. Up.); 'Being only was this in the beginning'
(Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'The Self only was this in the beginning' (Ai. Up. I,
1); 'Nārāyana alone existed, not Brahmā nor Siva.' Other texts define
his nature: 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1,
1); 'Knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Bri. Up. III. 9. 28); and others
again deny of Brahman all connexion with evil qualities and inferior
bodies sprung from Prakriti, and all dependence on karman, and proclaim
his glorious qualities and glorious forms: 'Free from qualities' (?);
'Free from taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'Free from old age, from death and
grief, from hunger and thirst, realising his wishes and purposes' (Ch.
Up. VIII, 1, 5); 'There is no effect and no cause known of him, no one
is seen like to him or superior: his high power is revealed as manifold,
as inherent action of force and knowledge' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'That
highest great lord of lords, the highest deity of deities' (Svet. Up. VI,
7); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is
of him neither parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI, 9); 'Having created all
forms and given names to them the wise one goes on calling them by those
names' (Taitt. Ār. III, 12, 7); 'I know that great Person of sunlike
lustre beyond the darkness' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'All moments originated
from the Person shining like lightning' (Mahānār. Up. I, 6).--This
essential form of his the most compassionate Lord by his mere will
individualises as a shape human or divine or otherwise, so as to render
it suitable to the apprehension of the devotee and thus satisfy him.
This the following scriptural passage declares, 'Unborn he is born in
many ways' (Gau. Kā. III, 24); and likewise Smriti. 'Though unborn I,
the imperishable Self, the Lord of the beings, presiding over my Nature,
manifest myself by my Māya for the protection of the Good and the
destruction of the evil doers '(Bha. Gī. IV, 6. 8). The 'Good' here are
the Devotees; and by 'Māya' is meant the purpose, the knowledge of the
Divine Being--; in agreement with the Naighantukas who register 'Māya'
as a synonym of jńāna (knowledge). In the Mahābhārata also the form
assumed by the highest Person in his avatāras is said not to consist of
Prakriti, 'the body of the highest Self does not consist of a
combination of material elements.'--For these reasons the Person within
the Sun and the eye is the highest Self which is different from the
individual soul of the Sun, &c.




22. And on account of the declaration of difference (the highest Self
is) other (than the individual souls of the sun, &c.).

There are texts which clearly state that the highest Self is different
from Āditya and the other individual souls: 'He who, dwelling within
Aditya (the sun), is different from Āditya, whom Āditya does not know,
of whom Āditya is the body, who rules Āditya from within; who dwelling
within the Self is different from the Self,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 9 ff.
); 'Of whom the Imperishable is the body, whom the Imperishable does not
know; who moves within Death, of whom Death is the body, whom Death does
not know; he is the inner self of all beings, free from evil, divine,
the one God Nārāyana' (Sub. Up. VII). These texts declare all individual
souls to be the body of the sinless highest Self which is said to be the
inward principle of all of them.--It is thereby completely proved that
the highest Self is something different from all individual souls such
as Āditya, and so on.--Here terminates the adhikarana of the 'one within.'

The text, 'That from which these beings are born,' teaches that Brahman
is the cause of the world; to the question thence arising of what nature
that cause of the world is, certain other texts give a reply in general
terms (' Being only this was in the beginning'; 'It sent forth fire';
'The Self only this was in the beginning,' &c.); and thereupon it is
shown on the basis of the special nature of that cause as proved by the
attributes of 'thought' and 'bliss,' that Brahman is different from the
pradhāna and the individual souls. The remaining part of this Pāda now
is devoted to the task of proving that where such special terms as Ether
and the like are used in sections setting forth the creation and
government of the world, they designate not the thing-sentient or non-
sentient--which is known from ordinary experience, but Brahman as proved
so far.




23. Ether (is Brahman), on account of the characteristic marks.

We read in the Chāndogya (I, 9), 'What is the origin of this world?'
'Ether,' he replied. 'For all these beings spring from the ether only,
and return into the ether. Ether is greater than these; ether is their
rest.' Here there arises the doubt whether the word 'ether' denotes the
well-known element or Brahman.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former
alternative. For, he says, in the case of things to be apprehended
through words we must accept that sense of the word which, proved by
etymology, is immediately suggested by the word. We therefore conclude
from the passage that the well-known Ether is the cause of the entire
aggregate of things, moving or non-moving, and that hence Brahman is the
same as Ether.--But has it not been shown that Brahman is something
different from non-sentient things because its creative activity is
preceded by thought?--This has been asserted indeed, but by no means
proved. For the proper way to combine the different texts is as follows.
Having been told that 'that from which these beings are born is Brahman',
we desire to know more especially what that source of all beings is, and
this desire is satisfied by the special information given by the text,
'All these things spring from the ether.' It thus being ascertained that
the ether only is the cause of the origin, and so on, of the world, we
conclude that also such general terms as 'Being' ('Being only was this
in the beginning') denote the particular substance called 'ether.' And
we further conclude that in passages such as 'the Self only was all this
in the beginning', the word 'Self (ātman) also denotes the ether; for
that word is by no means limited to non-sentient things--cp., e.g., the
phrase, 'Clay constitutes the Self of the jar'--, and its etymology also
(ātman from āp, to reach) shows that it may very well be applied to the
ether. It having thus been ascertained that the ether is the general
cause or Brahman, we must interpret such words as 'thinking' (which we
meet with in connexion with the creative activity of the general cause)
in a suitable, i.e. secondary, or metaphorical sense. If the texts
denoted the general cause by general terms only, such as 'Being', we
should, in agreement with the primary sense of 'thinking', and similar
terms, decide that that cause is an intelligent being; but since, as a
matter of fact, we ascertain a particular cause on the basis of the word
'ether', our decision cannot be formed on general considerations of what
would suit the sense.--But what then about the passage, 'From the Self
there sprang the ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1), from which it appears
that the ether itself is something created?--All elementary substances,
we reply, such as ether, air, and so on, have two different states, a
gross material one, and a subtle one. The ether, in its subtle state, is
the universal cause; in its gross state it is an effect of the primal
cause; in its gross state it thus springs from itself, i.e. ether in the
subtle state. The text, 'All these beings spring from ether only' (Ch.
Up. I, 9, 1), declares that the whole world originates from ether only,
and from this it follows that ether is none other than the general cause
of the world, i.e. Brahman. This non-difference of Brahman from the
empirically known ether also gives a satisfactory sense to texts such as
the following: 'If this ether were not bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, 1);
'Ether, indeed, is the evolver of names and forms' (Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 1,
and so on).--It thus appears that Brahman is none other than the well-
known elemental ether.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The word 'ether' in the
text under discussion denotes the highest Self with its previously
established characteristics--which is something quite different from the
non-sentient elemental ether. For the qualities which the passage
attributes to ether, viz. its being the one cause of the entire world,
its being greater than all, and the rest of all, clearly indicate the
highest Self. The non-intelligent elemental ether cannot be called the
cause of all, since intelligent beings clearly cannot be its effects;
nor can it be called the 'rest' of intelligent beings, for non-sentient
things are evil and antagonistic to the true aim of man; nor can it be
called 'greater' than all, for it is impossible that a non-sentient
element should possess all excellent qualities whatever and thus be
absolutely superior to everything else.--Nor is the Pūrvapakshin right
when maintaining that, as the word 'ether' satisfies the demand for a
special cause of the world, all other texts are to be interpreted in
accordance herewith. The words, 'All these beings indeed spring from the
ether only,' merely give expression to something generally known, and
statements of this nature presuppose other means of knowledge to prove
them. Now these other means required are, in our case, supplied by such
texts as 'Being only was this in the beginning,' and these, as we have
shown, establish the existence of Brahman. To Brahman thus established,
the text mentioning the ether merely refers as to something well known.
Brahman may suitably be called 'ether' (ākāsa), because being of the
nature of light it shines (ākāsate) itself, and makes other things shine
forth (ākāsayati). Moreover, the word 'ether' is indeed capable of
conveying the idea of a special being (as cause), but as it denotes a
special non-intelligent thing which cannot be admitted as the cause of
the intelligent part of the world we must deny all authoritativeness to
the attempt to tamper, in the interest of that one word, with the sense
of other texts which have the power of giving instruction as to an
entirely new thing (viz. Brahman), distinguished by the possession of
omniscience, the power of realising its purposes and similar attributes,
which we ascertain from certain complementary texts-such as 'it thought,
may I be many, may I grow forth,' and 'it desired, may I be many, may I
grow forth.' We also point out that the agreement in purport of a number
of texts capable of establishing the existence of a wonderful being
possessing infinite wonderful attributes is not lightly to be
disregarded in favour of one single text vhich moreover (has not the
power of intimating something not known before, but) only makes a
reference to what is already established by other texts.--As to the
averment that the word 'Self' is not exclusively limited to sentient
beings, we remark that that word is indeed applied occasionally to non-
sentient things, but prevailingly to that which is the correlative of a
body, i.e. the soul or spirit; in texts such as 'the Self only was this
in the beginning,' and 'from the Self there sprang the ether,' we must
therefore understand by the 'Self,' the universal spirit. The denotative
power of the term 'atman,' which is thus proved by itself, is moreover
confirmed by the complementary passages 'it desired, may I send forth
the worlds', 'it desired, may I be many, may I grow forth.'--We thus
arrive at the following conclusion: Brahman, which--by the passage
'Being only this was in the beginning'--is established as the sole cause
of the world, possessing all those manifold wonderful attributes which
are ascertained from the complementary passages, is, in the text under
discussion, referred to as something already known, by means of the term
'ether.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of' ether.'




24. For the same reason breath (is Brahman).

We read in the Chāndogya (I, 10; ii), 'Prastotri, that deity which
belongs to the Prastāva,' &c.; and further on, 'which then is that deity?
He said--Breath. For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from
breath they arise. This is the deity belonging to the Prastāva. If
without knowing that deity you had sung forth, your head would have
fallen off.' Here the word 'breath,' analogously to the word 'ether'
denotes the highest Brahman, which is different from what is commonly
called breath; we infer this from the fact that special characteristics
of Brahman, viz. the whole world's entering into and rising from it, are
in that text referred to as well-known things. There indeed here arises
a further doubt; for as it is a matter of observation that the existence,
activity, &c., of the whole aggregate of creatures depend on breath,
breath--in its ordinary acceptation--may be called the cause of the
world. This doubt is, however, disposed of by the consideration that
breath is not present in things such as stones and wood, nor in
intelligence itself, and that hence of breath in the ordinary sense it
cannot be said that 'all beings enter into it,' &c. We therefore
conclude that Brahman is here called 'breath' in so far as he bestows
the breath of life on all beings. And the general result of the
discussion carried on in connexion with the last two Sūtras thus is that
the words 'ether' and 'breath' denote something other than what is
ordinarily denoted by those terms, viz. the highest Brahman, the sole
cause of this entire world, free from all evil, &c. &c.--Here terminates
the adhikarana of 'breath.'

The subsequent Sūtras up to the end of the Pāda demonstrate that the
being which the texts refer to as 'Light' or 'Indra'--terms which in
ordinary language are applied to certain other well-known beings--, and
which is represented as possessing some one or other supremely exalted
quality that is invariably connected with world-creative power, is no
other than the highest Brahman.




25. The light (is Brahman), on account of the mention of feet.

We read in the Chāndogya. (III, 13, 7), 'Now that light which shines
above this heaven, higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond
which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within
man.'--Here a doubt arises, viz. whether the brightly shining thing here
called 'light' is the well-known light of the sun and so on, viewed as a
causal universal principle (Brahman); or the all-knowing, &c., highest
Person of infinite splendour, who is different in nature from all
sentient and non-sentient beings, and is the highest cause.--The
Pūrvapakshin maintains that the reference is to ordinary light. For, he
says, the passage does not mention a particular characteristic attribute
which can belong to the highest Self only--while such attributes _were_
met with in the texts referring to Ether and Breath--, and as thus there
is no opening for a recognition of the highest Self, and as at the same
time the text identifies 'light' with the intestinal heat of living
beings, we conclude that the text represents the well-known ordinary
light as Brahman, the cause of the world--which is possible as causal
agency is connected with extreme light and heat.--This primā facie view
the Sūtra sets aside. The light which the text states to be connected
with heaven and possessing supreme splendour can be the highest Person
only, since a preceding passage in the same section--' All the beings
are one foot of it, three feet are the Immortal in heaven'--refers to
all beings as being a foot of that same being which is connected with
heaven. Although the passage, 'That light which shines above,' &c., does
not mention a special attribute of the highest Person, yet the passage
previously quoted refers to the highest Person as connected with heaven,
and we therefore recognise that Person as the light connected with
heaven, mentioned in the subsequent passage.

Nor does the identification, made in a clause of the text, of light with
the intestinal heat give rise to any difficulty; for that clause is
meant to enjoin meditation on the highest Brahman in the form of
intestinal heat, such meditation having a special result of its own.
Moreover, the Lord himself declares that he constitutes the Self of the
intestinal fire, 'Becoming the Vaisvānara-fire I abide in the body of
living creatures' (Bha. Gī. XV, 14).




26. If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the
metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus the direction of
the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen.

The previous section at first refers to the metre called Gāyatrī, 'The
Gāyatrī indeed is everything' (III, 12, 1), and then introduces--with
the words 'this is also declared by a Rik_ verse'--the verse, 'Such is
the greatness of it (viz. the Gāyatrī),' &c. Now, as this verse also
refers to the metre, there is not any reference to the highest Person.--
To this objection the second part of the Sūtra replies. The word
'Gāyatrī' does not here denote the metre only, since this cannot
possibly be the Self of all; but the text declares the application of
the idea of Gāyatrī to Brahman, i.e. teaches, to the end of a certain
result being obtained, meditation on Brahman in so far as similar to
Gāyatrī. For Brahman having four feet, in the sense indicated by the rik_,
may be compared to the Gāyatrī with its four (metrical) feet. The
Gāyatrī (indeed has as a rule three feet, but) occasionally a Gāyatrī
with four feet is met with; so, e.g., 'Indras sakīpatih | valena pīditah |
duskyavano vrishā | samitsu sāsahih.' We see that in other passages also
words primarily denoting metres are employed in other senses; thus, e.g.,
in the samvargavidyā (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 8), where Virāj (the name of a
metre of ten syllables) denotes a group of ten divine beings.

For this conclusion the next Sūtra supplies a further argument.




27. And thus also, because (thus only) the designation of the beings,
and so on, being the (four) feet is possible.

The text, moreover, designates the Gāyatrī as having four feet, after
having referred to the beings, the earth, the body, and the heart; now
this has a sense only if it is Brahman, which here is called Gāyatrī.




28. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (recognised) on account of the
difference of designation; (we say) not so, on account of there being no
contradiction in either (designation).

In the former passage, 'three feet of it are what is immortal in heaven,'
heaven is referred to as the abode of the being under discussion;
while in the latter passage, 'that light which shines above this heaven,'
heaven is mentioned as marking its boundary. Owing to this discrepancy,
the Brahman referred to in the former text is not recognised in the
latter.--This objection the Sūtra disposes of by pointing out that owing
to the essential agreement of the two statements, nothing stands in the
way of the required recognition. When we say, 'The hawk is on the top of
the tree,' and 'the hawk is above the top of the tree,' we mean one and
the same thing.--The 'light,' therefore, is nothing else but the most
glorious and luminous highest Person. Him who in the former passage is
called four-footed, we know to have an extraordinarily beautiful shape
and colour--(cp., e.g., 'I know that great Person of sunlike colour
beyond the darkness' (Svet. Up. III, 9))--, and as hence his brilliancy
also must be extraordinary, he is, in the text under discussion, quite
appropriately called 'light.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'light.'

It has been shown that the being endowed with supreme brilliance, called
'Light,' which the text mentions as something well known, is the highest
Person. The Sūtrakāra will now show that the being designated as Indra
and Prāna, which the text enjoins as an object of meditation, for the
reason that it is the means for attaining immortality--a power which is
inseparable from causal power--, is likewise the highest Person.




29. Prāna is Brahman, on account of connexion.

We read in the Pratardana-vidyā in the Kaushītaki-brāhmana that
'Pratardana, the son of Divodāsa, came, by fighting and strength, to the
beloved abode of Indra.' Being asked by Indra to choose a boon he
requests the God to bestow on him that boon which he himself considers
most beneficial to man; whereupon Indra says, 'I am prāna (breath), the
intelligent Self, meditate on me as Life, as Immortality.' Here the
doubt arises whether the being called Prāna and Indra, and designating
itself as the object of a meditation most beneficial to man, is an
individual soul, or the highest Self.--An individual soul, the
Pūrvapakshin maintains. For, he says, the word 'Indra' is known to
denote an individual God, and the word 'Prāna,' which stands in
grammatical co-ordination with Indra, also applies to individual souls.
This individual being, called Indra, instructs Pratardana that
meditation on himself is most beneficial to man. But what is most
beneficial to man is only the means to attain immortality, and such a
means is found in meditation on the causal principle of the world, as we
know from the text, 'For him there is delay only so long as he is not
delivered; then he will be perfect' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2). We hence
conclude that Indra, who is known as an individual soul, is the causal
principle, Brahman.

This view is rejected by the Sūtra. The being called Indra and Prāna is
not a mere individual soul, but the highest Brahman, which is other than
all individual souls. For on this supposition only it is appropriate
that the being introduced as Indra and Prāna should, in the way of
grammatical co-ordination, be connected with such terms as 'blessed,'
'non-ageing,' 'immortal.' ('That Prāna indeed is the intelligent Self,
blessed, non-ageing, immortal,' Kau. Up. III, 9.)




30. If it be said that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the
speaker denoting himself; (we say, not so), because the multitude of
connexions with the inner Self (is possible only) in that (speaker if
viewed as Brahman).

An objection is raised.--That the being introduced as Indra and Prāna
should be the highest Brahman, for the reason that it is identical with
him who, later on, is called 'blessed,' 'non-ageing,' 'immortal'--this we
cannot admit. 'Know me only, I am prāna, meditate on me as the
intelligent Self, as life, as immortality'--the speaker of these words
is Indra, and this Indra enjoins on Pratardana meditation on his own
person only, the individual character of which is brought out by
reference to certain deeds of strength such as the slaying of the son of
Tvashtri ('I slew the three-headed son of Tvashtri,' &c.). As thus the
initial part of the section clearly refers to an individual being, the
terms occurring in the concluding part ('blessed,' 'non-ageing,'
'immortal') must be interpreted so as to make them agree with what
precedes.--This objection the Sūtra disposes of. 'For the multitude of
connexions with the Self'--i.e. the multitude of things connected with
the Self as its attributes--is possible only 'in that,' i.e. in that
speaker viewed as the highest Brahman. 'For, as in a car, the
circumference of the wheel is placed on the spokes, and the spokes on
the nave, thus are these objects placed on the subjects, and the
subjects on the prāna. That prāna indeed is the intelligent Self,
blessed, non-ageing, immortal.' The 'objects' (bhūtamātrāh) here are the
aggregate of non-sentient things; the 'subjects' (prajńāmātrāh) are the
sentient beings in which the objects are said to abide; when thereupon
the texts says that of these subjects the being called Indra and Prāna
is the abode, and that he is blessed, non-ageing, immortal; this
qualification of being the abode of this Universe, with all its non-
sentient and sentient beings, can belong to the highest Self only, which
is other than all individual souls.

The Sūtra may also be explained in a somewhat different way, viz. 'there
is a multitude of connexions belonging to the highest Self, i.e. of
attributes special to the highest Self, in that, viz. section.' The text
at first says, 'Choose thou that boon for me which thou deemest most
beneficial to man'--to which the reply is, 'Meditate on me.' Here Indra-
prāna is represented as the object of a meditation which is to bring
about Release; the object of such meditation can be none but the highest
Self.--'He makes him whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds do a
good deed; and him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds he
makes do a bad deed.' The causality with regard to all actions which is
here described is again a special attribute of the highest Self.--The
same has to be said with regard to the attribute of being the abode of
all, in the passage about the wheel and spokes, quoted above; and with
regard to the attributes of bliss, absence of old age and immortality,
referred to in another passage quoted before. Also the attributes of
being 'the ruler of the worlds, the lord of all,' can belong to the
highest Self only.--The conclusion therefore is that the being called
Indra and Prāna is none other but the highest Self.--But how then can
Indra, who is known to be an individual person only, enjoin meditation
on himself?--To this question the next Sūtra replies.




31. The instruction (given by Indra about himself) (is possible) through
insight based on Scripture, as in the case of Vāmadeva.

The instruction which, in the passages quoted, Indra gives as to the
object of meditation, i.e. Brahman constituting his Self, is not based
on such an insight into his own nature as is established by other means
of proof, but on an intuition of his own Self, mediated by Scripture.
'Having entered into them with this living Self let me evolve names and
forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'In it all that exists has its Self (Ch. Up.
VI, 8, 7); Entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self of all'
(Taitt. Ar. III, 21); 'He who dwelling in the Self is different from the
Self,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22)--from these and similar texts Indra has
learned that the highest Self has the indiviual souls for its body, and
that hence words such as 'I' and 'thou,' which denote individual beings,
extend in their connotation up to the highest Self; when, therefore, he
says, 'Know me only', and 'Meditate on me', he really means to teach
that the highest Self, of which his own individual person is the body,
is the proper object of meditation. 'As in the case of Vāmadeva.' As the
Rishi Vāmadeva perceiving that Brahman is the inner Self of all, that
all things constitute its body, and that the meaning of words denoting a
body extends up to the principle embodied, denotes with the word 'I' the
highest Brahman to which he himself stands in the relation of a body,
and then predicates of this 'I' Manu Sūrya and other beings--'Seeing
this the Rishi. Vāmadeva understood, I am Manu, I am Sūrya' (Bri. Up. I,
4, 10). Similarly Prahlāda says, 'As the Infinite one abides within all,
he constitutes my "I" also; all is from me, I am all, within me is all.'
(Vi. Pu. I, 19, 85.) The next Sūtra states, in reply to an objection,
the reason why, in the section under discussion, terms denoting the
individual soul, and others denoting non-sentient things are applied to
Brahman.




32. If it be said (that Brahman is not meant) on account of
characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air; we
say no, on account of the threefoldness of meditation; on account of
(such threefold meditation) being met (in other texts also); and on
account of (such threefold meditation) being appropriate here (also).

An objection is raised. 'Let none try to find out what speech is, let
him know the speaker'; 'I slew the three-headed son of Tvashtri; I
delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves'; these passages
state characteristic marks of an individual soul (viz. the god Indra).--
'As long as Prāna dwells in this body, so long there is life'; 'Prāna
alone is the conscious Self, and having laid hold of this body, it makes
it rise up.'--These passages again mention characteristic attributes of
the chief vital air. Hence there is here no 'multitude of attributes
belonging to the Self.'--The latter part of the Sūtra refutes this
objection. The highest Self is called by these different terms in order
to teach threefoldness of devout meditation; viz. meditation on Brahman
in itself as the cause of the entire world; on Brahman as having for its
body the totality of enjoying (individual) souls; and on Brahman as
having for its body the objects and means of enjoyment.--This threefold
meditation on Brahman, moreover, is met with also in other chapters of
the sacred text. Passages such as 'The True, knowledge, infinite is
Brahman,' 'Bliss is Brahman,' dwell on Brahman in itself. Passages again
such as 'Having created that he entered into it. Having entered it he
became _sat_ and _tyat_, defined and undefined,' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 6),
represent Brahman as having for its body the individual souls and
inanimate nature. Hence, in the chapter under discussion also, this
threefold view of Brahman is quite appropriate. Where to particular
individual beings such as Hiranyagarbha, and so on, or to particular
inanimate things such as prakriti, and so on, there are attributed
qualities especially belonging--to the highest Self; or where with words
denoting such persons and things there are co-ordinated terms denoting
the highest Self, the intention of the texts is to convey the idea of
the highest Self being the inner Self of all such persons and things.--
The settled conclusion, therefore, is that the being designated as Indra
and Prāna is other than an individual soul, viz. the highest Self.




SECOND PĀDA.

THE contents of the first Pāda may be summed up as follows:--It has been
shown that a person who has read the text of the Veda; who further,
through the study of the Karma-Mīmāmsa, has acquired a full knowledge of
the nature of (sacrificial and similar) works, and has recognised that
the fruits of such works are limited and non-permanent; in whom there
has arisen the desire for the highest aim of man, i.e. Release, which,
as he has come to know in the course of reading the Vedānta portions of
scripture, is effected by meditation on the nature of Brahman--such
meditation having an infinite and permanent result; who has convinced
himself that words are capable of conveying information about
accomplished things (not only about things to be done), and has arrived
at the conclusion that the Vedānta-texts are an authoritative means of
knowledge with regard to the highest Brahman;--that such a person, we
say, should begin the study of the Sārīraka-Mīmāmsā which indicates the
method how Brahman is to be known through the Vedānta-texts.

We next have shown that the text 'That from which these creatures are
born,' &c., conveys the idea of the highest Brahman as that being which
in sport, as it were, creates, sustains, and finally reabsorbs this
entire universe, comprising within itself infinite numbers of variously
constituted animated beings--moving and non-moving--, of objects of
enjoyment for those beings, of means of enjoyment, and of abodes of
enjoyment; and which is the sole cause of all bliss. We have established
that this highest Brahman, which is the sole cause of the world, cannot
be the object of the other means of knowledge, and hence is to be known
through scripture only. We have pointed out that the position of
scripture as an authoritative means of knowledge is established by the
fact that all the Vedānta-texts connectedly refer to the highest Brahman,
which, although not related to any injunctions of action or abstention
from action, by its own essential nature constitutes the highest end of
man. We have proved that Brahman, which the Vedānta-texts teach to be
the sole cause of the world, must be an intelligent principle other than
the non-sentient pradhāna, since Brahman is said to think. We have
declared that this intelligent principle is other than the so-called
individual soul, whether in the state of bondage or that of release;
since the texts describe it as in the enjoyment of supreme bliss, all-
wise, the cause of fear or fearlessness on the part of intelligent
beings, the inner Self of all created things, whether intelligent or non-
intelligent, possessing the power of realising all its purposes, and so
on.--We have maintained that this highest Being has a divine form,
peculiar to itself, not made of the stuff of Prakriti, and not due to
karman.--We have explained that the being which some texts refer to as a
well-known cause of the world--designating it by terms such as ether or
breath, which generally denote a special non-sentient being--is that
same highest Self which is different from all beings, sentient or non-
sentient.--We have declared that, owing to its connexion with heaven,
this same highest Self is to be recognised in what the text calls a
'light,' said to possess supreme splendour, such as forms a special
characteristic of the highest Being. We have stated that, as we
recognise through insight derived from scripture, that same highest
Person is denoted by terms such as Indra, and so on; as the text
ascribes to that 'Indra' qualities exclusively belonging to the highest
Self, such, e.g., as being the cause of the attainment of immortality.--
And the general result arrived at was that the Vedānta-texts help us to
the knowledge of one being only, viz. Brahman, or the highest Person, or
Nārāyana--of whom it is shown that he cannot possibly be the object of
the other means of knowledge, and whom the possession of an unlimited
number of glorious qualities proves to differ totally from all other
beings whatsoever.

Now, although Brahman is the only object of the teaching of the Vedānta-
texts, yet some of these texts might give rise to the notion that they
aim at setting forth (not Brahman), but some particular being comprised
within either the pradhāna or the aggregate of individual souls. The
remaining Pādas of the first Adhyāya therefore apply themselves to the
task of dispelling this notion and proving that what the texts in
question aim at is to set forth certain glorious qualities of Brahman.
The second Pāda discusses those texts which contain somewhat obscure
references to the individual soul; the third Pāda those which contain
clear references to the same; and the fourth Pāda finally those texts
which appear to contain even clearer intimations of the individual soul,
and so on.




1. Everywhere; because there is taught what is known.

We read in the Chāndogya, 'Man is made of thought; according to what his
thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life.
Let him form this thought: he who consists of mind, whose body is breath,
whose form is light,' &c. (III, 14). We here understand that of the
meditation enjoined by the clause 'let him form this thought' the object
is the being said to consist of mind, to have breath for its body, &c. A
doubt, however, arises whether the being possessing these attributes be
the individual soul or the highest Self.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the
former alternative. For, he says, mind and breath are instruments of the
individual soul; while the text 'without breath, without mind,'
distinctly denies them to the highest Self. Nor can the Brahman
mentioned in a previous clause of the same section ('All this indeed is
Brahman') be connected as an object with the meditation enjoined in the
passage under discussion; for Brahman is there referred to in order to
suggest the idea of its being the Self of all--which idea constitutes a
means for bringing about that calmness of mind which is helpful towards
the act of meditation enjoined in the clause 'Let a man meditate with
calm mind,' &c. Nor, again, can it be said that as the meditation
conveyed by the clause 'let him form this thought' demands an object,
Brahman, although mentioned in another passage, only admits of being
connected with the passage under discussion; for the demand for an
object is fully satisfied by the being made of mind, &c., which is
mentioned in that very passage itself; in order to supply the object we
have merely to change the case-terminations of the words 'manomayah
prānasarīrah,' &c. It having thus been determined that the being made of
mind is the individual soul, we further conclude that the Brahman
mentioned in the concluding passage of the section ('That is Brahman')
is also the individual soul, there called Brahman in order to glorify it.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The being made of mind
is the highest Self; for the text states certain qualities, such as
being made of mind, &c., which are well known to denote, in all Vedānta-
texts, Brahman only. Passages such as 'He who is made of mind, the guide
of the body of breath' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 7); 'There is the ether within
the heart, and in it there is the Person, consisting of mind, immortal,
golden' (Taitt. Up. I. 6, 1); 'He is conceived by the heart, by wisdom,
by the mind. Those who know him are immortal' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 9); 'He is
not apprehended by the eye nor by speech, but by a purified mind' (Mu.
Up. III, 1, 8); 'The breath of breath' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 183); 'Breath
alone is the conscious Self, and having laid hold of this body it makes
it rise up' (Kau. Up. III, 3); 'All these beings merge into breath alone,
and from breath they arise' (Ch. Up. I, 11, 5)--these and similar texts
refer to Brahman as consisting of mind, to be apprehended by a purified
mind, having breath for its body, and being the abode and ruler of
breath. This being so, we decide that in the concluding passage, 'my
Self within the heart, that is Brahman,' the word 'Brahman' has to be
taken in its primary sense (and does not denote the individual soul).
The text which declares Brahman to be without mind and breath, merely
means to deny that the thought of Brahman depends on a mind (internal
organ), and that its life depends on breath.

Or else we may interpret the Vedic text and the Sūtra as follows. The
passage 'All this is Brahman; let a man meditate with a calm mind on
this world as originating, ending, and breathing in Brahman,' conveys
the imagination of meditation on Brahman as the Self of all. The
subsequent clause 'Let him form the thought,' &c., forms an additional
statement to that injunction, the purport of which is to suggest certain
attributes of Brahman, such as being made of mind. So that the meaning
of the whole section is 'Let a man meditate on Brahman, which is made of
mind, has breath for its body, &c., as the Self of the whole world.'--
Here a doubt presents itself. Does the term 'Brahman' in this section
denote the individual soul or the highest Self?--The individual soul,
the Pūrvapakshin maintains, for that only admits of being exhibited in
co-ordination with the word 'all.' For the word 'all' denotes the entire
world from Brahmā down to a blade of grass; and the existence of Brahmā
and other individual beings is determined by special forms of karman,
the root of which is the beginningless Nescience of the individual soul.
The highest Brahman, on the other hand, which is all-knowing, all-
powerful, free from all evil and all shadow of Nescience and similar
imperfections, cannot possibly exist as the 'All' which comprises within
itself everything that is bad. Moreover we find that occasionally the
term 'Brahman' is applied to the individual soul also; just as the
highest Lord (paramesvara) may be called 'the highest Self' (paramātman)
or 'the highest Brahman.' That 'greatness' (brihattva; which is the
essential characteristic of 'brahman') belongs to the individual soul
when it has freed itself from its limiting conditions, is moreover
attested by scripture: 'That (soul) is fit for infinity' (Svet. Up. V,
9). And as the soul's Nescience is due to karman (only), the text may
very well designate it--as it does by means of the term 'tajjalān'--as
the cause of the origin, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world.
That is to say--the individual soul which, in its essential nature, is
non-limited, and therefore of the nature of Brahman, owing to the
influence of Nescience enters into the state of a god, or a man, or an
animal, or a plant.

This view is rejected by the Sūtra. 'Everywhere,' i.e. in the whole
world which is referred to in the clause 'All this is Brahman' we have
to understand the highest Brahman--which the term 'Brahman' denotes as
the Self of the world--, and not the individual soul; 'because there is
taught what is known,' i.e. because the clause 'All this is Brahman'--
for which clause the term 'tajjalān' supplies the reason--refers to
Brahman as something generally known. Since the world springs from
Brahman, is merged in Brahman, and depends on Brahman for its life,
therefore--as the text says--'All this has its Self in Brahman'; and
this shows to us that what the text understands by Brahman is that being
from which, as generally known from the Vedānta texts, there proceed the
creation, and so on, of the world. That the highest Brahman only, all-
wise and supremely blessed, is the cause of the origin, &c., of the
world, is declared in the section which begins. 'That from which these
beings are born,' &c., and which says further on, 'he knew that Bliss is
Brahman, for from bliss these beings are born' (Taitt. Up. III, 6); and
analogously the text 'He is the cause, the lord of lords of the organs,'
&c. (Svet. Up. VI, 9), declares the highest Brahman to be the cause of
the individual soul. Everywhere, in fact, the texts proclaim the
causality of the highest Self only. As thus the world which springs from
Brahman, is merged in it, and breathes through it, has its Self in
Brahman, the identity of the two may properly be asserted; and hence the
text--the meaning of which is 'Let a man meditate with calm mind on the
highest Brahman of which the world is a mode, which has the world for
its body, and which is the Self of the world'--first proves Brahman's
being the universal Self, and then enjoins meditation on it. The highest
Brahman, in its causal condition as well as in its so-called 'effected'
state, constitutes the Self of the world, for in the former it has for
its body all sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle form, and
in the latter the same beings in their gross condition. Nor is there any
contradiction between such identity with the world on Brahman's part,
and the fact that Brahman treasures within itself glorious qualities
antagonistic to all evil; for the imperfections adhering to the bodies,
which are mere modes of Brahman, do not affect Brahman itself to which
the modes belong. Such identity rather proves for Brahman supreme lordly
power, and thus adds to its excellences. Nor, again, can it rightly be
maintained that of the individual soul also identity with the world can
be predicated; for the souls being separate according to the bodies with
which they are joined cannot be identical with each other. Even in the
state of release, when the individual soul is not in any way limited, it
does not possess that identity with the world on which there depends
causality with regard to the world's creation, sustentation, and
reabsorption; as will be declared in Sūtra IV, 4, 17. Nor, finally, does
the Pūrvapakshin improve his case by contending that the individual soul
may be the cause of the creation, &c., of the world because it (viz. the
soul) is due to karman; for although the fact given as reason is true,
all the same the Lord alone is the cause of the Universe.--All this
proves that the being to which the text refers as Brahman is none other
than the highest Self.

This second alternative interpretation of the Sūtra is preferred by most
competent persons. The Vrittikāra, e.g. says, 'That Brahman which the
clause "All this is Brahman" declares to be the Self of all is the Lord.'




2. And because the qualities meant to be stated are possible (in
Brahman).

The qualities about to be stated can belong to the highest Self only.
'Made of mind, having breath for its body,' &c. 'Made of mind' means to
be apprehended by a purified mind only. The highest Self can be
apprehended only by a mind purified by meditation on that Self, such
meditation being assisted by the seven means, viz. abstention, &c. (see
above, p. 17). This intimates that the highest Self is of pure goodness,
precluding all evil, and therefore different in nature from everything
else; for by the impure minded impure objects only can be apprehended.--
'Having the vital breath for its body' means--being the supporter of all
life in the world. To stand in the relation of a body to something else,
means to abide in that other thing, to be dependent on it, and to
subserve it in a subordinate capacity, as we shall fully show later on.
And all 'vital breath' or 'life' stands in that relation to the highest
Self. 'Whose form is light'; i.e. who is of supreme splendour, his form
being a divine one of supreme excellence peculiar to him, and not
consisting of the stuff of Prakriti.--'Whose purposes are true'; i.e.
whose purposes realise themselves without any obstruction. 'Who is the
(or "of the") Self of ether'; i.e. who is of a delicate and transparent
nature, like ether; or who himself is the Self of ether, which is the
causal substance of everything else; or who shines forth himself and
makes other things shine forth.--'To whom all works belong'; i.e. he of
whom the whole world is the work; or he to whom all activities belong.--
'To whom all wishes belong'; i.e. he to whom all pure objects and means
of desire and enjoyment belong. 'He to whom all odours and tastes
belong'; i.e. he to whom there belong, as objects of enjoyment, all
kinds of uncommon, special, perfect, supremely excellent odours and
tastes; ordinary smells and tastes being negatived by another text, viz.
'That which is without sound, without touch, without taste,' &c. (Ka. Up.
I, 3, 15).--'He who embraces all this'; i.e. he who makes his own the
whole group of glorious qualities enumerated.--'He who does not speak,'
because, being in possession of all he could desire, he 'has no regard
for anything'; i.e. he who, in full possession of lordly power, esteems
this whole world with all its creatures no higher than a blade of grass,
and hence abides in silence.--All these qualities stated in the text can
belong to the highest Self only.




3. But, on account of impossibility, not the embodied soul.

Those who fully consider this infinite multitude of exalted qualities
will recognise that not even a shadow of them can belong to the
individual soul--whether in the state of bondage or that of release--
which is a thing as insignificant as a glow-worm and, through its
connexion with a body, liable to the attacks of endless suffering. It is
not possible therefore to hold that the section under discussion should
refer to the individual soul.




4. And because there is (separate) denotation of the object and the
agent.

The clause 'When I shall have departed from hence I shall obtain him'
denotes the highest Brahman as the object to be obtained, and the
individual soul as that which obtains it. This shows that the soul which
obtains is the person meditating, and the highest Brahman that is to be
obtained, the object of meditation: Brahman, therefore, is something
different from the attaining soul.




5. On account of the difference of words.

The clause 'That is the Self of me, within the heart' designates the
embodied soul by means of a genitive form, while the object of
meditation is exhibited in the nominative case. Similarly, a text of the
Vājasaneyins, which treats of the same topic, applies different terms to
the embodied and the highest Self, 'Like a rice grain, or a barley grain,
or a canary seed, or the kernel of a canary seed, thus that golden
Person is within the Self' (Sat. Br. X, 6, 3, 2). Here the locative form,
'within the Self,' denotes the embodied Self, and the nominative, 'that
golden Person,' the object to be meditated on.--All this proves the
highest Self to be the object of meditation.




6. And on account of Smriti.

'I dwell within the hearts of all, from me come memory and knowledge, as
well as their loss'; 'He who free from delusion knows me to be the
highest Person'; 'The Lord, O Arjuna, is seated in the heart of all
Beings, driving round by his mysterious power all beings as if mounted
on a machine; to him fly for refuge' (Bha. Gi. XV, 15, 19; XVIII, 61).
These Smriti-texts show the embodied soul to be the meditating subject,
and the highest Self the object of meditation.




7. Should it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) on
account of the smallness of the abode, and on account of the denotation
of that (viz. minuteness of the being meditated on); we say no, because
(Brahman) has thus to be meditated upon, and because (in the same
passage) it is said to be like ether.

It might be contended that, as the text 'he is my Self within the heart'
declares the being meditated on to dwell within a minute abode, viz. the
heart; and as moreover another text--'smaller than a grain of rice,' &c.,
declares it to be itself of minute size, that being cannot be the
highest Self, but only the embodied soul. For other passages speak of
the highest Self as unlimited, and of the embodied soul as having the
size of the point of a goad (cp. e.g. Mu. Up. I, 1, 6, and Svet. Up. V,
8).--This objection the Sūtra rebuts by declaring that the highest Self
is spoken of as such, i.e. minute, on account of its having to be
meditated upon as such. Such minuteness does not, however, belong to its
true nature; for in the same section it is distinctly declared to be
infinite like ether--'greater than the earth, greater than the sky,
greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 3).
This shows that the designation of the highest Self as minute is for the
purpose of meditation only.--The connexion of the whole section then is
as follows. The clause 'All this is Brahman; let a man meditate with
calm mind on this world as beginning, ending, and breathing in Brahman,'
enjoins meditation on Brahman as being the Self of all, in so far as it
is the cause of the origin and destruction of all, and entering into all
beings as their soul gives life to them. The next clause, 'Man is made
of thought; according as his thought is in this world, so will he be
when he has departed this life,' declares the attainment of the desired
object to depend on the nature of the meditation; and the following
clause, 'Let him therefore form the following thought,' thereupon
repeats the injunction with a view to the declaration of details. The
clause 'He who consists of mind,' &c., up to 'who is never surprised,'
then states the nature and qualities, of the being to be meditated upon,
which are to be comprised in the meditation. Next, the clause 'He is my
Self,' up to 'the kernel of a canary seed,' declares that the highest
Person, for the purpose of meditation, abides in the heart of the
meditating devotee; representing it as being itself minute, since the
heart is minute. After this the clause 'He also is my Self,' up to 'who
is never surprised,' describes those aspects of the being meditated upon
as within the heart, which are to be attained by the devotee. Next, the
words 'this my Self within the heart is that Brahman' enjoins the
reflection that the highest Brahman, as described before, is, owing to
its supreme kindness, present in our hearts in order thereby to refresh
and inspirit us. Then the clause 'When I shall have departed from hence
I shall obtain him' suggests the idea that there is a certainty of
obtaining him on the basis of devout meditation; and finally the clause
'He who has this faith has no doubt' declares that the devotee who is
firmly convinced of his aim being attainable in the way described, will
attain it beyond any doubt.--From all this it appears that the
'limitation of abode,' and the 'minuteness' ascribed to Brahman, are
merely for the purpose of meditation.




8. Should it be said that there is attainment of fruition (of pleasure
and pain); we reply, not so, on account of difference.

But, if the highest Brahman is assumed to dwell within bodies, like the
individual soul, it follows that, like the latter, it is subject to the
experience of pleasure and pain, such experience springing from
connexion with bodies!--Of this objection the Sūtra disposes by
remarking 'not so, on account of difference (of reason).' For what is
the cause of experiences, pleasurable or painful, is not the mere
dwelling within a body, but rather the subjection to the influence of
good and evil deeds; and such subjection is impossible in the case of
the highest Self to which all evil is foreign. Compare the scriptural
text 'One of the two eats the sweet fruit, the other one looks on
without eating' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 1).--Here finishes the adhikarana of
'what is known everywhere.'

Well then, if the highest Self is not an enjoyer, we must conclude that
wherever fruition is referred to, the embodied soul only is meant!--Of
this view the next adhikarana disposes.




9. The eater (is the highest Self) on account of there being taken all
that is movable and immovable.

We read in the Kathavallī (I, 3, 25), 'Who then knows where he is to
whom the Brahmans and Kshattriyas are but food, and death itself a
condiment?' A doubt here arises whether the 'eater', suggested by the
words 'food' and 'condiment,' is the individual soul or the highest Self.--
The individual soul, the Pūrvapakshin maintains; for all enjoyment
presupposes works, and works belong to the individual soul only.--Of
this view the Sūtra disposes. The 'eater' can be the highest Self only,
because the taking, i. e. eating, of the whole aggregate of movable and
immovable things can be predicated of that Self only. 'Eating' does not
here mean fruition dependent on work, but rather the act of reabsorption
of the world on the part of the highest Brahman, i. e. Vishnu, who is
the cause of the origination, subsistence, and final destruction of the
universe. This appears from the fact that Vishnu is mentioned in the
same section, 'He reaches the end of his journey, and that is the
highest place of Vishnu' (Ka. Up. I, 3, 9). Moreover the clause 'to whom
death is a condiment' shows that by the Brahmans and Kshattriyas,
mentioned in the text, we have to understand the whole universe of
moving and non-moving things, viewed as things to be consumed by the
highest Self. For a condiment is a thing which, while itself being eaten,
causes other things to be eaten; the meaning of the passage, therefore,
is that while death itself is consumed, being a condiment as it were,
there is at the same time eaten whatever is flavoured or made palatable
by death, and that is the entire world of beings in which the Brahmans
and Kshattriyas hold the foremost place. Now such eating of course is
destruction or reabsorption, and hence such enjoyment--meaning general
reabsorption--can belong to the highest Self only.




10. And on account of the topic of the whole section.

Moreover the highest Brahman constitutes the topic of the entire section.
Cp. 'The wise who knows the Self as great and omnipresent does not
grieve' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 22); 'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor
by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him
the Self can be gained; the Self chooses him as his own' (I, 2, 23).--
Moreover, the clause (forming part of the text under discussion),'Who
knows him (i.e. the being which constitutes the topic of the section)
where he is?' clearly shows that we have to recognise here the Self of
which it had previously been said that it is hard to know unless it
assists us with its grace.

To this conclusion a new objection presents itself.--Further on in the
same Upanishad (I, 3, 1) we meet with the following text: 'There are two,
drinking their reward in the world of their own works, entered into the
cave, dwelling on the highest summit; those who know Brahman call them
shade and light, likewise those householders who perform the Trinakiketa-
sacrifice.' Now this text clearly refers to the individual soul which
enjoys the reward of its works, together with an associate coupled to it.
And this associate is either the vital breath, or the organ of knowledge
(buddhi). For the drinking of 'rita' is the enjoyment of the fruit of
works, and such enjoyment does not suit the highest Self. The buddhi, or
the vital breath, on the other hand, which are instruments of the
enjoying embodied soul, may somehow be brought into connexion with the
enjoyment of the fruit of works. As the text is thus seen to refer to
the embodied soul coupled with some associate, we infer, on the ground
of the two texts belonging to one section, that also the 'eater'
described in the former text is none other than the individual soul.--To
this objection the next Sūtra replies.




11. The 'two entered into the cave' are the two Selfs; on account of
this being seen.

The two, entered into the cave and drinking their reward, are neither
the embodied soul together with the vital breath, nor the embodied soul
together with the buddhi; it is rather the embodied Self and the highest
Self which are designated by those terms. For this is seen, i.e. it is
seen that in that section the individual Self and the highest Self only
are spoken of as entered into the cave. To the highest Self there refers
I, 2, 12, 'The wise who by meditation on his Self recognises the Ancient
who is difficult to see, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in
the cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy and
sorrow far behind.' And to the individual soul there refers I, 4, 7,
'Who is together with the vital breath, who is Aditi, who is made of the
deities, who entering into the cave abides therein, who was born
variously through the elements.' Aditi here means the individual soul
which enjoys (atti) the fruits of its works; which is associated with
the vital breath; which is made of the deities, i.e. whose enjoyment is
dependent on the different sense-organs; which abides in the hollow of
the heart; and which, being connected with the elementary substances,
earth, and so on, is born in various forms--human, divine, &c.--That the
text speaks of the two Selfs as drinking their reward (while actually
the individual soul only does so) is to be understood in the same way as
the phrase 'there go the umbrella-bearers' (one of whom only carries the
umbrella). Or else we may account for this on the ground that both are
agents with regard to the drinking, in so far as the 'drinking'
individual soul is caused to drink by the highest Self.




12. And on account of distinctive qualities.

Everywhere in that section we meet with statements of distinctive
attributes of the two Selfs, the highest Self being represented as the
object of meditation and attainment, and the individual Self as the
meditating and attaining subject. The passage 'When he has known and
understood that which is born from Brahman, the intelligent, to be
divine and venerable, then he obtains everlasting peace' (I, 1, 17)
refers to the meditating individual soul which recognises itself as
being of the nature of Brahman. On the other hand, I, 3, 2, 'That which
is a bridge for sacrificers, the highest imperishable Brahman for those
who wish to cross over to the fearless shore, the Nākiketa, may we be
able to know that,' refers to the highest Self as the object of
meditation; 'Nākiketa' here meaning that which is to be reached through
the Nākiketa-rite. Again, the passage 'Know the Self to be sitting in
the chariot and the body to be the chariot' (I, 3, 3) refers to the
meditating individual soul; and the verse, I, 3, 9, 'But he who has
understanding for his charioteer, and holds the reins of the mind, he
reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu.'
refers to the embodied and the highest Selfs as that which attains and
that which is to be attained. And in the text under discussion also (I,
3, 1), the two Selfs are distinctly designated as light and shade, the
one being all-knowing, the other devoid of knowledge.

But, a new objection is raised, the initial passage, I, 1, 20, 'That
doubt which there is when a man is dead--some saying, he is; others, he
is not,' clearly asks a question as to the true nature of the individual
soul, and we hence conclude that that soul forms the topic of the whole
chapter.--Not so, we reply. That question does not spring from any doubt
as to the existence or non-existence of the soul apart from the body;
for if this were so the two first boons chosen by Nākiketas would be
unsuitable. For the story runs as follows: When the sacrifice offered by
the father of Nākiketas--at which all the possessions of the sacrificer
were to be given to the priests--is drawing towards its close, the boy,
feeling afraid that some deficiency on the part of the gifts might
render the sacrifice unavailing, and dutifully wishing to render his
father's sacrifice complete by giving his own person also, repeatedly
asks his father, 'And to whom will you give me'? The father, irritated
by the boy's persistent questioning, gives an angry reply, and in
consequence of this the boy goes to the palace of Yama, and Yama being
absent, stays there for three days without eating. Yama on his return is
alarmed at this neglect of hospitality, and wishing to make up for it
allows him to choose three boons. Nākiketas, thereupon, full of faith
and piety, chooses as his first boon that his father should forgive him.
Now it is clear that conduct of this kind would not be possible in the
case of one not convinced of the soul having an existence independent of
the body. For his second boon, again, he chooses the knowledge of a
sacrificial fire, which has a result to be experienced only by a soul
that has departed from the body; and this choice also can clearly be
made only by one who knows that the soul is something different from the
body. When, therefore, he chooses for his third boon the clearing up of
his doubt as to the existence of the soul after death (as stated in v.
20), it is evident that his question is prompted by the desire to
acquire knowledge of the true nature of the highest Self--which
knowledge has the form of meditation on the highest Self--, and by means
thereof, knowledge of the true nature of final Release which consists in
obtaining the highest Brahman. The passage, therefore, is not concerned
merely with the problem as to the separation of the soul from the body,
but rather with the problem of the Self freeing itself from all bondage
whatever--the same problem, in fact, with which another scriptural
passage also is concerned, viz. 'When he has departed there is no more
knowledge' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 12). The full purport of Nākiketas' question,
therefore, is as follows: When a man qualified for Release has died and
thus freed himself from all bondage, there arises a doubt as to his
existence or non-existence--a doubt due to the disagreement of
philosophers as to the true nature of Release; in order to clear up this
doubt I wish to learn from thee the true nature of the state of Release.--
Philosophers, indeed, hold many widely differing opinions as to what
constitutes Release. Some hold that the Self is constituted by
consciousness only, and that Release consists in the total destruction
of this essential nature of the Self. Others, while holding the same
opinion as to the nature of the Self, define Release as the passing away
of Nescience (avidyā). Others hold that the Self is in itself non-
sentient, like a stone, but possesses, in the state of bondage, certain
distinctive qualities, such as knowledge, and so on. Release then
consists in the total removal of all these qualities, the Self remaining
in a state of pure isolation (kaivalya). Others, again, who acknowledge
a highest Self free from all imperfection, maintain that through
connexion with limiting adjuncts that Self enters on the condition of an
individual soul; Release then means the pure existence of the highest
Self, consequent on the passing away of the limiting adjuncts. Those,
however, who understand the Vedānta, teach as follows: There is a
highest Brahman which is the sole cause of the entire universe, which is
antagonistic to all evil, whose essential nature is infinite knowledge
and blessedness, which comprises within itself numberless auspicious
qualities of supreme excellence, which is different in nature from all
other beings, and which constitutes the inner Self of all. Of this
Brahman, the individual souls--whose true nature is unlimited knowledge,
and whose only essential attribute is the intuition of the supreme Self--
are modes, in so far, namely, as they constitute its body. The true
nature of these souls is, however, obscured by Nescience, i.e. the
influence of the beginningless chain of works; and by _Release_ then we
have to understand that intuition of the highest Self, which is the
natural state of the individual souls, and which follows on the
destruction of Nescience.--When Nākiketas desires Yama graciously to
teach him the true nature of Release and the means to attain it, Yama at
first tests him by dwelling on the difficulty of comprehending Release,
and by tempting him with various worldly enjoyments. But having in this
way recognised the boy's thorough fitness, he in the end instructs him
as to the kind of meditation on the highest Self which constitutes
knowledge of the highest Reality, as to the nature of Release--which
consists in reaching the abode of the highest Self--, and as to all the
required details. This instruction begins, I, 2, 12, 'The Ancient one
who is difficult to see,' &c., and extends up to I, 3, 9. 'and that is
the highest place of Vishnu.'--It thus is an established conclusion that
the 'eater' is no other than the highest Self.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the eater.'




13. (The Person) within the eye (is the highest Self) on account of
suitability.

The Chandogas have the following text: 'The Person that is seen within
the eye, that is the Self. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is
Brahman' (Ch. Up. IV, 15, 1). The doubt here arises whether the person
that is here spoken of as abiding within the eye is the reflected Self,
or some divine being presiding over the sense of sight, or the embodied
Self, or the highest Self.--It is the reflected Self, the Pūrvapakshin
maintains; for the text refers to the person seen as something well
known, and the expression, 'is seen,' clearly refers to something
directly perceived. Or it may be the individual soul, for that also may
be referred to as something well known, as it is in special connexion
with the eye: people, by looking into the open eye of a person,
determine whether the living soul remains in him or is departing. Or
else we may assume that the Person seen within the eye is some
particular divine being, on the strength of the scriptural text, Bri. Up.
V, 5, 2, 'He (the person seen within the sun) rests with his rays in him
(the person within the eye).' Any of these beings may quite suitably be
referred to as something well known.--Of these alternatives the Sūtra
disposes by declaring that the Person within the eye is the highest Self.
For the text goes on to say about the Person seen within the eye, 'They
call him Samyadvāma, for all blessings go towards him. He is also Vāmanī,
for he leads all blessings. He is also Bhāmanī, for he shines in all
worlds.' And all these attributes can be reconciled with the highest
Self only.




14. And on account of the statement as to abode, and so on.

Abiding within the eye, ruling the eye, and so on are predicated by
scripture of the highest Self only, viz. in Bri. Up. III, 7, 18, 'He who
dwells within the eye, who rules the eye within.' We therefore recognise
that highest Self in the text, 'That Person which is seen within the eye.'
The argument founded on reference to 'something well known' thus suits
the highest Self very well; and also the clause which denotes immediate
perception ('is seen') appears quite suitable, since the highest Self is
directly intuited by persons practising mystic concentration of mind
(Yoga).




15. And on account of the text referring only to what is characterised
by pleasure.

The Person abiding within the eye is the highest Person, for the
following reason also. The topic of the whole section is Brahman
characterised by delight, as indicated in the passage 'Ka (pleasure) is
Brahman, Kha (ether) is Brahman' (Ch. Up. IV,10, 5). To that same Brahman
the passage under discussion ('The Person that is seen in the eye')
refers for the purpose of enjoining first a place with which Brahman is
to be connected in meditation, and secondly some special qualities--such
as comprising and leading all blessings--to be attributed to Brahman in
meditation.--The word 'only' in the Sūtra indicates the independence of
the argument set forth.

But--an objection is raised--between the Brahman introduced in the
passage 'Ka is Brahman,'&c., and the text under discussion there
intervenes the vidyā of the Fires (Ch. Up. IV, 11-13), and hence Brahman
does not readily connect itself with our passage. For the text says that
after the Fires had taught Upakosala the knowledge of Brahman ('Breath
is Brahman, Ka is Brahman,' &c.), they taught him a meditation on
themselves ('After that the Gārhapatya fire taught him,' &c., Ch. Up.
IV, 11, 1). And this knowledge of the Fires cannot be considered a mere
subordinate part of the knowledge of Brahman, for the text declares that
it has special fruits of its own--viz. the attainment of a ripe old age
and prosperous descendants, &c.--which are not comprised in the results
of the knowledge of Brahman, but rather opposed to them in nature.--To
this we make the following reply. As both passages (viz. IV, 10, 5,
'Breath is Brahman,' &c.; and IV, 15, 1, 'this is Brahman') contain the
word Brahman, and as from the words of the Fires, 'the teacher will tell
you the way,' it follows that the knowledge of Brahman is not complete
before that way has been taught, we determine that the knowledge of the
Fires which stands between the two sections of the knowledge of Brahman
is a mere subordinate member of the latter. This also appears from the
fact that the Gārhapatya fire begins to instruct Upakosala only after he
has been introduced into the knowledge of Brahman. Upakosala moreover
complains that he is full of sorrows (I, 10, 3), and thus shows himself
to be conscious of all the sufferings incidental to human life-birth,
old age, death, &c.--which result from man being troubled by manifold
desires for objects other than the attainment of Brahman; when therefore
the Fires conclude their instruction by combining in saying, 'This, O
friend, is the knowledge of us and the knowledge of the Self which we
impart to thee,' it is evident that the vidyā of the Fires has to be
taken as a subordinate member of the knowledge of the Self whose only
fruit is Release. And from this it follows that the statement of the
results of the Agnividyā has to be taken (not as an injunction of
results-phalavidhi--but) merely as an arthavāda (cp. Pū. Mī. Sū. IV, 3,
1). It, moreover, is by no means true that the text mentions such fruits
of the Agnividyā as would be opposed to final Release; all the fruits
mentioned suit very well the case of a person qualified for Release. 'He
destroys sin' (Ch. Up. IV, 11, 2; 12, 2; 13, 2), i.e. he destroys all
evil works standing in the way of the attainment of Brahman. 'He obtains
the world,' i. e. all impeding evil works having been destroyed he
obtains the world of Brahman. 'He reaches his full age,' i.e. he fully
reaches that age which is required for the completion of meditation on
Brahman. 'He lives long,' i.e. he lives unassailed by afflictions until
he reaches Brahman. 'His descendants do not perish,' i.e. his pupils,
and their pupils, as well as his sons, grandsons, &c., do not perish; i.
e. they are all knowers of Brahman, in agreement with what another text
declares to be the reward of knowledge of Brahman--'In his family no one
is born ignorant of Brahman' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9). 'We guard him in this
world and the other,' i.e. we Fires guard him from all troubles until he
reaches Brahman.--The Agnividyā thus being a member of the Brahmavidyā,
there is no reason why the Brahman introduced in the earlier part of the
Brahmavidyā should not be connected with the latter part--the function
of this latter part being to enjoin a place of meditation (Brahman being
meditated on as the Person within the eye), and some special qualities
of Brahman to be included in the meditation.--But (an objection is
raised) as the Fires tell Upakosala 'the teacher will tell you the way,'
we conclude that the teacher has to give information as to the way to
Brahman only; how then can his teaching refer to the place of meditation
and the special qualities of Brahman?--We have to consider, we reply, in
what connexion the Fires address those words to Upakosala. His teacher
having gone on a journey without having imparted to him the knowledge of
Brahman, and Upakosala being dejected on that account, the sacred fires
of his teacher, well pleased with the way in which Upakosala had tended
them, and wishing to cheer him up, impart to him the general knowledge
of the nature of Brahman and the subsidiary knowledge of the Fires. But
remembering that, as scripture says, 'the knowledge acquired from a
teacher is best,' and hence considering it advisable that the teacher
himself should instruct Upakosala as to the attributes of the highest
Brahman, the place with which it is to be connected in meditation and
the way leading to it, they tell him 'the teacher will tell you the way,'
the 'way' connoting everything that remains to be taught by the
teacher. In agreement herewith the teacher--having first said, 'I will
tell you this; and as water does not cling to a lotus leaf, so no evil
clings to one who knows it'--instructs him about Brahman as possessing
certain auspicious attributes, and to be meditated upon as abiding
within the eye, and about the way leading to Brahman.--It is thus a
settled conclusion that the text under discussion refers to that Brahman
which was introduced in the passage 'Ka is Brahman,' and that hence the
Person abiding within the eye is the highest Self.

But--an objection is raised--how do you know that the passage 'Ka
(pleasure) is Brahman, Kha (ether) is Brahman' really refers to the
highest Brahman, so as to be able to interpret on that basis the text
about the Person within the eye? It is a more obvious interpretation to
take the passage about Ka and Kha as enjoining a meditation on Brahman
viewed under the form of elemental ether and of ordinary worldly
pleasure. This interpretation would, moreover, be in agreement with
other similarly worded texts (which are generally understood to enjoin
meditation on Brahman in a definite form), such as 'Name is Brahman',
'Mind is Brahman.'




16. For that very reason that (ether) is Brahman.

Because the clause 'What is Ka the same is Kha' speaks of ether as
characterised by pleasure, the ether which is denoted by 'Kha' is no
other than the highest Brahman. To explain. On the Fires declaring
'Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman,' Upakosala says, 'I
understand that breath is Brahman, but I do not understand Ka and Kha.'
The meaning of this is as follows. The Fires cannot speak of meditation
on Brahman under the form of breath and so on, because they are engaged
in giving instruction to me, who am afraid of birth, old age, death, &c.,
and desirous of final Release. What they declare to me therefore is
meditation on Brahman itself. Now here Brahman is exhibited in co-
ordination with certain well-known things, breath and so on. That
Brahman should be qualified by co-ordination with breath is suitable,
either from the point of view of Brahman having the attribute of
supporting the world, or on account of Brahman being the ruler of breath,
which stands to it in the relation of a body. Hence Upakosala says, 'I
understand that breath is Brahman.' With regard to pleasure and ether,
on the other hand, there arises the question whether they are exhibited
in the relation of qualifying attributes of Brahman on the ground of
their forming the body of Brahman, and hence being ruled by it, or
whether the two terms are meant to determine each other, and thus to
convey a notion of the true nature of Brahman being constituted by
supreme delight. On the former alternative the declaration of the Fires
would only state that Brahman is the ruler of the elemental ether and of
all delight depending on the sense-organs, and this would give no notion
of Brahman's true nature; on the latter alternative the Fires would
declare that unlimited delight constitutes Brahman's true nature. In
order to ascertain which of the two meanings has to be taken, Upakosala
therefore says, 'I do not understand Ka and Kha.' The Fires,
comprehending what is in his mind, thereupon reply, 'What is Ka the same
is Kha, what is Kha the same is Ka,' which means that the bliss which
constitutes Brahman's nature is unlimited. The same Brahman therefore
which has breath for its attribute because breath constitutes its body,
is of the nature of unlimited bliss; the text therefore adds, 'They
taught him that (viz. Brahman) as breath and as ether.' What the text,
'Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman,' teaches thus is Brahman as consisting
of unlimited bliss, and this Brahman is resumed in the subsequent text
about the Person seen within the eye. That Person therefore is the
highest Self.




17. And on account of the statement of the way of him who has heard the
Upanishads.

Other scriptural texts give an account of the way--the first station of
which is light--that leads up to the highest Person, without any
subsequent return, the soul of him who has read the Upanishads, and has
thus acquired a knowledge of the true nature of the highest Self. Now
this same way is described by the teacher to Upakosala in connexion with
the instruction as to the Person in the eye, 'They go to light, from
light to day,' &c. This also proves that the Person within the eye is
the highest Self.




18. Not any other, on account of non-permanency of abode, and of
impossibility.

As the reflected Self and the other Selfs mentioned by the Pūrvapakshin
do not necessarily abide within the eye, and as conditionless
immortality and the other qualities (ascribed in the text to the Person
within the eye) cannot possibly belong to them, the Person within the
eye cannot be any Self other than the highest Self. Of the reflected
Self it cannot be said that it permanently abides within the eye, for
its presence there depends on the nearness to the eye of another person.
The embodied Self again has its seat within the heart, which is the root
of all sense-organs, so as to assist thereby the activities of the
different senses; it cannot therefore abide within the eye. And with
regard to the divinity the text says that 'he rests with his rays in him,
i.e. the eye': this implies that the divine being may preside over the
organ of sight although itself abiding in another place; it does not
therefore abide in the eye. Moreover, non-conditioned immortality and
similar qualities cannot belong to any of these three Selfs. The Person
seen within the eye therefore is the highest Self.

We have, under Sū. I, 2, 14, assumed as proved that the abiding within
the eye and ruling the eye, which is referred to in Bri. Up. III, 7, 18
('He who dwells in the eye,' &c.), can belong to the highest Self only,
and have on that basis proved that the Self within the eye is the
highest Self.--Here terminates the adhikarana of that 'within.'--The
next Sūtra now proceeds to prove that assumption.




19. The internal Ruler (referred to) in the clauses with respect to the
gods, with respect to the worlds, &c. (is the highest Self), because the
attributes of that are designated.

The Vājasaneyins, of the Kānwa as well as the Mādhyandina branch, have
the following text: 'He who dwelling in the earth is within the earth,
whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who rules the
earth within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the Immortal.' The text
thereupon extends this teaching as to a being that dwells in things, is
within them, is not known by them, has them for its body and rules them;
in the first place to all divine beings, viz. water, fire, sky, air, sun,
the regions, moon, stars, ether, darkness, light; and next to all
material beings, viz. breath, speech, eye, ear, mind, skin, knowledge,
seed--closing each section with the words, 'He is thy Self, the ruler
within, the Immortal.' The Mādhyandinas, however, have three additional
sections, viz. 'He who dwells in all worlds,' &c.; 'he who dwells in all
Vedas,' &c.; 'He who dwells in all sacrifices'; and, moreover, in place
of 'He who dwells in knowledge' (vijńąna) they read 'He who dwells in
the Self.'--A doubt here arises whether the inward Ruler of these texts
be the individual Self or the highest Self.

The individual Self, the Pūrvapakshin maintains. For in the
supplementary passage (which follows upon the text considered so far)
the internal Ruler is called the 'seer' and 'hearer,' i.e. his knowledge
is said to depend on the sense-organs, and this implies the view that
the 'seer' only (i.e. the individual soul only) is the inward Ruler; and
further the clause 'There is no other seer but he' negatives any other
seer.

This view is set aside by the Sūtra. The Ruler within, who is spoken of
in the clauses marked in the text by the terms 'with respect of the gods,'
'with respect of the worlds,' &c., is the highest Self free from all
evil, Nārāyana. The Sūtra purposely joins the two terms 'with respect to
the gods' and 'with respect to the worlds' in order to intimate that, in
addition to the clauses referring to the gods and beings (bhūta)
exhibited by the Kānva-text, the Mādhyandina-text contains additional
clauses referring to the worlds, Vedas, &c. The inward Ruler spoken of
in both these sets of passages is the highest Self; for attributes of
that Self are declared in the text. For it is a clear attribute of the
highest Self that being one only it rules all worlds, all Vedas, all
divine beings, and so on. Uddālaka asks, 'Dost thou know that Ruler
within who within rules this world and the other world and all beings?
&c.--tell now that Ruler within'; and Yājńavalkya replies with the long
passus, 'He who dwells in the earth,' &c., describing the Ruler within
as him who, abiding within all worlds, all beings, all divinities, all
Vedas, and all sacrifices, rules them from within and constitutes their
Self, they in turn constituting his body. Now this is a position which
can belong to none else but the highest Person, who is all-knowing, and
all whose purposes immediately realise themselves. That it is the
highest Self only which rules over all and is the Self of all, other
Upanishad-texts also declare; cp. e.g. 'Entered within, the ruler of
creatures, the Self of all'; 'Having sent forth this he entered into it.
Having entered it he became sat and tyat,' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 6).
Similarly the text from the Subāla-Up., which begins, 'there was not
anything here in the beginning,' and extends up to 'the one God,
Nārāyana,' shows that it is the highest Brahman only which rules all, is
the Self of all, and has all beings for its body. Moreover, essential
immortality (which the text ascribes to the Ruler within) is an
attribute of the highest Self only.--Nor must it be thought that the
power of seeing and so on that belongs to the highest Self is dependent
on sense-organs; it rather results immediately from its essential
nature, since its omniscience and power to realise its purposes are due
to its own being only. In agreement herewith scripture says, 'He sees
without eyes, he hears without ears, without hands and feet he grasps
and hastes' (Svet. Up. III, 19). What terms such as 'seeing' and
'hearing' really denote is not knowledge in so far as produced by the
eye and ear, but the intuitive presentation of colour and sound. In the
case of the individual soul, whose essentially intelligising nature is
obscured by karman, such intuitive knowledge arises only through the
mediation of the sense-organs; in the case of the highest Self, on the
other hand, it springs from its own nature.--Again, the clause 'there is
no other seer but he' means that there is no seer other than the seer
and ruler described in the preceding clauses. To explain. The clauses
'whom the earth does not know,' &c., up to 'whom the Self does not know'
mean to say that the Ruler within rules without being perceived by the
earth, Self, and the other beings which he rules. This is confirmed by
the subsequent clauses, 'unseen but a seer', 'unheard but a hearer,' &c.
And the next clauses, 'there is no other seer but he,' &c., then mean to
negative that there is any other being which could be viewed as the
ruler of that Ruler. Moreover, the clauses 'that is the Self of thee,'
'He is the Self of thee' exhibit the individual Self in the genitive
form ('of thee'), and thus distinguish it from the Ruler within, who is
declared to be their Self.




20. And not that which Smriti assumes, on account of the declaration of
qualities not belonging to that; nor the embodied one.

'That which Smriti assumes' is the Pradhāna; the 'embodied one' is the
individual soul. Neither of these can be the Ruler within, since the
text states attributes which cannot possibly belong to either. For there
is not even the shadow of a possibility that essential capability of
seeing and ruling all things, and being the Self of all, and immortality
should belong either to the non-sentient Pradhāna or to the individual
soul.--The last two Sūtras have declared that the mentioned qualities
belong to the highest Self, while they do not belong to the individual
soul. The next Sūtra supplies a new, independent argument.




21. For both also speak of it as something different.

Both, i.e. the Mādhyandinas as well as the Kānvas, distinguish in their
texts the embodied soul, together with speech and other non-intelligent
things, from the Ruler within, representing it as an object of his rule.
The Mādhyandinas read, 'He who dwells in the Self, whom the Self does
not know,' &c.; the Kānvas, 'He who dwells within understanding', &c.
The declaration of the individual Self being ruled by the Ruler within
implies of course the declaration of the former being different from the
latter.

The conclusion from all this is that the Ruler within is a being
different from the individual soul, viz. the highest Self free from all
evil, Nārāyana.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the internal Ruler'.




22. That which possesses the qualities of invisibility, &c., on account
of the declaration of attributes.

The Ātharvanikas read in their text, 'The higher knowledge is that by
which that Indestructible is apprehended. That which is invisible,
unseizable, without origin and qualities, &c., that it is which the wise
regard as the source of all beings'; and further on, 'That which is
higher than the high Imperishable' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5, 6; II, 1, 2). The
doubt here arises whether the Indestructible, possessing the qualities
of imperceptibility, &c., and that which is higher than the
Indestructible, should be taken to denote the Pradhāna and the soul of
the Sānkhyas, or whether both denote the highest Self.--The Pūrvapakshin
maintains the former alternative. For, he says, while in the text last
discussed there is mentioned a special attribute of an intelligent being,
viz. in the clause 'unseen but a seer', no similar attribute is stated
in the former of the two texts under discussion, and the latter text
clearly describes the collective individual soul, which is higher than
the imperishable Pradhāna, which itself is higher than all its effects.
The reasons for this decision are as follows:--Colour and so on reside
in the gross forms of non-intelligent matter, viz. the elements, earth,
and so on. When, therefore, visibility and so on are expressly negatived,
such negation suggests a non-sentient thing cognate to earth, &c., but
of a subtle kind, and such a thing is no other than the Pradhāna. And as
something higher than this Pradhāna there are known the collective souls
only, under whose guidance the Pradhāna gives birth to all its effects,
from the so-called Mahat downwards to individual things. This
interpretation is confirmed by the comparisons set forth in the next
sloka, 'As the spider sends forth and draws in its threads, as plants
spring from the earth, as hair grows on the head and body of the living
man, thus does everything arise here from the Indestructible.' The
section therefore is concerned only with the Pradhāna and the individual
soul.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. That which possesses
invisibility and the other qualities stated in the text, and that which
is higher than the high Indestructible, is no other than the highest
Self. For the text declares attributes which belong to the highest Self
only, viz. in I, 1, 9, 'He who knows all, cognises all,' &c. Let us
shortly consider the connexion of the text. The passage beginning 'the
higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended'
declares an indestructible being possessing the attributes of
invisibility and so on. The clause 'everything arises here from the
Indestructible' next declares that from that being all things originate.
Next the sloka, 'He who knows all and cognises all,' predicates of that
Indestructible which is the source of all beings, omniscience, and
similar qualities. And finally the text, 'That which is higher than the
high Indestructible,' characterises that same being--which previously
had been called invisible, the source of beings, indestructible, all-
knowing, &c.--as the highest of all. Hence it is evident that in the
text 'higher than the high Indestructible' the term 'Indestructible'
does not denote the invisible, &c. Indestructible, which is the chief
topic of the entire section; for there can of course be nothing higher
than that which, as being all-knowing, the source of all, &c., is itself
higher than anything else. The 'Indestructible' in that text therefore
denotes the elements in their subtle condition.




23. Not the two others, on account of distinction and statement of
difference.

The section distinguishes the indestructible being, which is the source
of all, &c., from the Pradhāna as well as the individual soul, in so far,
namely, as it undertakes to prove that by the cognition of one thing
everything is known; and it moreover, in passages such as 'higher than
the high Indestructible,' explicitly states the difference of the
indestructible being from those other two.--The text first relates that
Brahmā told the knowledge of Brahman, which is the foundation of the
knowledge of all, to his eldest son Atharvan: this introduces the
knowledge of Brahman as the topic of the section. Then, the text
proceeds, in order to obtain this knowledge of Brahman, which had been
handed down through a succession of teachers to Angiras, Saunaka
approached Angiras respectfully and asked him: 'What is that through
which, if known, all this is known?' i.e. since all knowledge is founded
on the knowledge of Brahman, he enquires after the nature of Brahman.
Angiras replies that he who wishes to attain Brahman must acquire two
kinds of knowledge, both of them having Brahman for their object: an
indirect one which springs from the study of the sāstras, viz. the Veda,
Sikshā, Kalpa, and so on, and a direct one which springs from
concentrated meditation (yoga). The latter kind of knowledge is the
means of obtaining Brahman, and it is of the nature of devout meditation
(bhakti), as characterised in the text 'He whom the Self chooses, by him
the Self can be gained' (III, 2, 3). The means again towards this kind
of knowledge is such knowledge as is gained from sacred tradition,
assisted by abstention and the other six auxiliary means (sec above, p.
17); in agreement with the text, 'Him the Brahmattas seek to know by the
study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting' (Bri.
Up. IV, 4, 22).--Thus the Reverend Parāsara also says, 'The cause of
attaining him is knowledge and work, and knowledge is twofold, according
as it is based on sacred tradition or springs from discrimination.' The
Mundaka-text refers to the inferior kind of knowledge in the passage
'the lower knowledge is the Rig-veda,' &c., up to 'and the dharma-
sāstras'; this knowledge is the means towards the intuition of Brahman;
while the higher kind of knowledge, which is called 'upāsanā,' has the
character of devout meditation (bhakti), and consists in direct
intuition of Brahman, is referred to in the clause 'the higher knowledge
is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended.' The text next
following, 'That which is invisible, &c., then sets forth the nature of
the highest Brahman, which is the object of the two kinds of knowledge
previously described. After this the passage 'As the spider sends forth
and draws in its thread' declares that from that indestructible highest
Brahman, as characterised before, there originates the whole universe of
things, sentient and non-sentient. The next soka (tapasā kīyate, &c.)
states particulars about this origination of the universe from Brahman.
'Brahman swells through brooding'; through brooding, i.e. thought--in
agreement with a later text, 'brooding consists of thought'--Brahman
swells, i.e. through thought in the form of an intention, viz. 'may I
become many,' Brahman becomes ready for creation. From it there springs
first 'anna,' i.e. that which is the object of fruition on the part of
all enjoying agents, viz. the non-evolved subtle principles of all
elements. From this 'anna' there spring successively breath, mind, and
all other effected things up to work, which is the means of producing
reward in the form of the heavenly world, and Release. The last sloka of
the first chapter thereupon first states the qualities, such as
omniscience and so on, which capacitate the highest Brahman for creation,
and then declares that from the indestructible highest Brahman there
springs the effected (kārya) Brahman, distinguished by name and form,
and comprising all enjoying subjects and objects of enjoyment.--The
first sloka of the second chapter declares first that the highest
Brahman is absolutely real ('That is true'), and then admonishes those
who desire to reach the indestructible highest Self, which possesses all
the blessed qualities stated before and exists through itself, to turn
away from other rewards and to perform all those sacrificial works
depending on the three sacred fires which were seen and revealed by
poets in the four Vedas and are incumbent on men according to caste and
āsrama. The section 'this is your path' (I, 2, 1) up to 'this is the
holy Brahma-world gained by your good works' (I, 2, 6) next states the
particular mode of performing those works, and declares that an omission
of one of the successive works enjoined in Druti and Smriti involves
fruitlessness of the works actually performed, and that something not
performed in the proper way is as good as not performed at all. Stanzas
7 and ff. ('But frail in truth are those boats') declare that those who
perform this lower class of works have to return again and again into
the Samsāra, because they aim at worldly results and are deficient in
true knowledge. Stanza 8 ('but those who practise penance and faith')
then proclaims that works performed by a man possessing true knowledge,
and hence not aiming at worldly rewards, result in the attainment of
Brahman; and stanzas 12 a, 13 ('having examined all these worlds')
enjoin knowledge, strengthened by due works, on the part of a man who
has turned away from _mere_ works, as the means of reaching Brahman; and
due recourse to a teacher on the part of him who is desirous of such
knowledge.--The first chapter of the second section of the Upanishad (II,
1)then clearly teaches how the imperishable highest Brahman, i.e. the
highest Self--as constituting the Self of all things and having all
things for its body--has all things for its outward form and emits all
things from itself. The remainder of the Upanishad ('Manifest, near,' &c.
) teaches how this highest Brahman, which is imperishable and higher
than the soul, which itself is higher than the Unevolved; which dwells
in the highest Heaven; and which is of the nature of supreme bliss, is
to be meditated upon as within the hollow of the heart; how this
meditation has the character of devout faith (bhakti); and how the
devotee, freeing himself from Nescience, obtains for his reward
intuition of Brahman, which renders him like Brahman.

It thus clearly appears that 'on account of distinction and statement of
difference' the Upanishad does not treat of the Pradhāna and the soul.
For that the highest Brahman is different from those two is declared in
passages such as 'That heavenly Person is without body; he is both
without and within, not produced, without breath and without mind, pure,
higher than what is higher than the Imperishable' (II, 1, 2); for the
last words mean 'that imperishable highest Self possessing invisibility
and similar qualities, which is higher than the aggregate of individual
souls, which itself is higher than the non-evolved subtle elements.' The
term 'akshara' (imperishable) is to be etymologically explained either
as that which pervades (asnute) or that which does not pass away (a-
ksharati), and is on either of these explanations applicable to the
highest Self, either because that Self pervades all its effects or
because it is like the so-called Mahat (which is also called akshara),
free from all passing away or decaying.--Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'invisibility and so on.'




24. And on account of the description of its form.

'Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the regions his ears,
his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the
universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of
all things' (II, 1, 4)--the outward form here described can belong to
none but the highest Self; that is, the inner Self of all beings. The
section therefore treats of the highest Self.




25. Vaisvānara (is the highest Self), on account of the distinctions
qualifying the common term.

The Chandogas read in their text, 'You know at present that Vaisvānara
Self, tell us that,' &c., and further on, 'But he who meditates on the
Vaisvānara Self as a span long,' &c. (Ch. Up. V, 11, 6; 18, 1). The
doubt here arises whether that Vaisvānara Self can be made out to be the
highest Self or not. The Pūrvapakshin maintains the latter alternative.
For, he says, the word Vaisvānara is used in the sacred texts in four
different senses. It denotes in the first place the intestinal fire, so
in Bri. Up, V, 9, 'That is the Vaisvānara fire by which the food that is
eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears when
one covers one's ears. When man is on the point of departing this life
he does not hear that noise.'--It next denotes the third of the elements,
so in Ri_. Samh. X, 88, 12, 'For the whole world the gods have made the
Agni Vaisvānara a sign of the days.'--It also denotes a divinity, so Ri_.
Samh. I, 98, 1, 'May we be in the favour of Vaisvānara, for he is the
king of the kings,' &c. And finally it denotes the highest Self, as in
the passage, 'He offered it in the Self, in the heart, in Agni
Vaisvānara'; and in Pra. Up. I, 7, 'Thus he rises as Vaisvānara,
assuming all forms, as breath of life, as fire.'--And the characteristic
marks mentioned in the introductory clauses of the Chandogya-text under
discussion admit of interpretations agreeing with every one of these
meanings of the word Vaisvānara.

Against this primā facie view the Sūtra declares itself. The term
'Vaisvānara' in the Chāndogya-text denotes the highest Self, because the
'common' term is there qualified by attributes specially belonging to
the highest Self. For the passage tells us how Aupamanyava and four
other great Rhshis, having met and discussed the question as to what was
their Self and Brahman, come to the conclusion to go to Uddālaka because
he is reputed to know the Vaisvānara Self. Uddālaka, recognising their
anxiety to know the Vaisvānara Self, and deeming himself not to be fully
informed on this point, refers them to Asvapati Kaikeya as thoroughly
knowing the Vaisvānara Self; and they thereupon, together with Uddālaka,
approach Asvapati. The king duly honours them with presents, and as they
appear unwilling to receive them, explains that they may suitably do so,
he himself being engaged in the performance of a religious vow; and at
the same time instructs them that even men knowing Brahman must avoid
what is forbidden and do what is prescribed. When thereupon he adds that
he will give them as much wealth as to the priests engaged in his
sacrifice, they, desirous of Release and of knowing the Vaisānara Self,
request him to explain that Self to them. Now it clearly appears that as
the Rishis are said to be desirous of knowing--that Brahman which is the
Self of the individual souls ('what is our Self, what is Brahman'), and
therefore search for some one to instruct them on that point, the
Vaisvānara Self--to a person acquainted with which they address
themselves--can be the highest Self only. In the earlier clauses the
terms used are 'Self' and 'Brahman,' in the later 'Self' and 'Vaisvānara';
from this it appears also that the term 'Vaisvānara,' which takes the
place of 'Brahman,' denotes none other but the highest Self. The results,
moreover, of the knowledge of the Vaisvānara Self, which are stated in
subsequent passages, show that the Vaisvānara Self is the highest
Brahman. 'He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs'; 'as
the fibres of the Ishīkā reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus
all his sins are burned' (V, 18, I; 24, 3).

The next Sūtra supplies a further reason for the same conclusion.




26. That which the text refers to is an inferential mark--thus.

The text describes the shape of Vaisvānara, of whom heaven, &c., down to
earth constitute the several limbs; and it is known from Scripture and
Smriti that such is the shape of the highest Self. When, therefore, we
recognise that shape as referred to in the text, this supplies an
inferential mark of Vaisvānara being the highest Self.--The 'thus' (iti)
in the Sūtra denotes a certain mode, that is to say, 'a shape of such a
kind being recognised in the text enables us to infer that Vaisvānara is
the highest Self.' For in Scripture and Smriti alike the highest Person
is declared to have such a shape. Cp. e.g. the text of the Įtharvanas.
'Agni is his head, the sun and moon his eyes, the regions his cars, his
speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the Universe;
from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things'
(Mu. Up. II, I, 4). 'Agni' in this passage denotes the heavenly world,
in agreement with the text 'that world indeed is Agni.' And the
following Smrriti texts: 'He of whom the wise declare the heavenly world
to be the head, the ether the navel, sun and moon the eyes, the regions
the ears, the earth the feet; he whose Self is unfathomable is the
leader of all beings'; and 'of whom Agni is the mouth, heaven the head,
the ether the navel, the earth the feet, the sun the eye, the regions
the ear; worship to him, the Self of the Universe!'--Now our text
declares the heavenly world and so on to constitute the head and the
other limbs of Vaisvānara. For Kaikeya on being asked by the Rishis to
instruct them as to the Vasvānara Self recognises that they all know
something about the Vaisvānara Self while something they do not know
(for thus only we can explain his special questions), and then in order
to ascertain what each knows and what not, questions them separately.
When thereupon Aupamanyava replies that he meditates on heaven only as
the Self, Kaikeya, in order to disabuse him from the notion that heaven
is the whole Vaisvānara Self, teaches him that heaven is the head of
Vaisvānara, and that of heaven which thus is a part only of Vaisvānara,
Sutejas is the special name. Similarly he is thereupon told by the other
Rishis that they meditate only on sun, air, ether, and earth, and
informs them in return that the special names of these beings are 'the
omniform,' 'he who moves in various ways,' 'the full one,''wealth and
'firm rest,' and that these all are mere members of the Vaisvānara Self,
viz. its eyes, breath, trunk, bladder, and feet. The shape thus
described in detail can belong to the highest Self only, and hence
Vaisvānara is none other but the highest Self.

The next Sūtra meets a further doubt as to this decision not yet being
well established.




27. Should it be said that it is not so, on account of the word, &c.,
and on account of the abiding within; we say, no; on account of
meditation being taught thus, on account of impossibility; and because
they read of him as person.

An objection is raised. Vaisvānara cannot be ascertained to be the
highest Self, because, on the account of the text and of the abiding
within, we can understand by the Vaisvānara in our text the intestinal
fire also. The text to which we refer occurs in the Vaisvānara-vidyā of
the Vājasaneyins, 'This one is the Agni Vaisvānara,' where the two words
'Agni' and 'Vaisvānara' are exhibited in co-ordination. And in the
section under discussion the passage, 'the heart is the Gārhapatya fire,
the mind the Anvāhārya-pakana fire, the mouth the Āhavanīya fire' (Ch.
Up. V, 18, 2), represents the Vaisvānara in so far as abiding within the
heart and so on as constituting the triad of sacred fires. Moreover the
text, 'The first food which a man may take is in the place of Soma. And
he who offers that first oblation should offer it to Prāna' (V, 19, 1),
intimates that Vaisvānara is the abode of the offering to Prāna. In the
same way the Vājasaneyins declare that Vaisvānara abides within man, viz.
in the passage 'He who knows this Agni Vaisvānara shaped like a man
abiding within man.' As thus Vaisvānara appears in co-ordination with
the word 'Agni,' is represented as the triad of sacred fires, is said to
be the abode of the oblation to Breath, and to abide within man, he must
be viewed as the intestinal fire, and it is therefore not true that he
can be identified with the highest Self only.

This objection is set aside by the Sūtra. It is not so 'on account of
meditation (on the highest Self) being taught thus,' i.e. as the text
means to teach that the highest Brahman which, in the manner described
before, has the three worlds for its body should be meditated upon as
qualified by the intestinal fire which (like other beings) constitutes
Brahman's body. For the word 'Agni' denotes not only the intestinal fire,
but also the highest Self in so far as qualified by the intestinal fire.--
But how is this to be known?--'On account of impossibility;' i.e.
because it is impossible that the mere intestinal fire should have the
three worlds for its body. The true state of the case therefore is that
the word Agni, which is understood to denote the intestinal fire, when
appearing in co-ordination with the term Vaisvānara represented as
having the three worlds for his body, denotes (not the intestinal fire,
but) the highest Self as qualified by that fire viewed as forming the
body of the Self. Thus the Lord also says, 'As Vaisvānara fire I abide
in the body of living creatures and, being assisted by breath inspired
and expired, digest the fourfold food' (Bha Gī. XIV, 15). 'As Vaisvānara
fire' here means 'embodied in the intestinal fire.'--The Chāndogya text
under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self embodied in the
Vaisvānara fire.--Moreover the Vājasaneyins read of him, viz. the
Vaisvānara, as man or person, viz. in the passage 'That Agni Vaisvānara
is the person' (Sa. Brā. X, 6, 1, 11). The intestinal fire by itself
cannot be called a person; unconditioned personality belongs to the
highest Self only. Compare 'the thousand-headed person' (Ri. Samh.), and
'the Person is all this' (Sve. Up. III, 15).




28. For the same reasons not the divinity and the element.

For the reasons stated Vaisvānara can be neither the deity Fire, nor the
elemental fire which holds the third place among the gross elements.




29. Jaimini thinks that there is no objection to (the word 'Agni')
directly (denoting the highest Self).

So far it has been maintained that the word 'Agni,' which stands in co-
ordination with the term 'Vaisvānara,' denotes the highest Self in so
far as qualified by the intestinal fire constituting its body; and that
hence the text under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self.
Jaimini, on the other hand, is of opinion that there is no reasonable
objection to the term 'Agni,' no less than the term: 'Vaisvānara,' being
taken _directly_ to denote the highest Self. That is to say--in the same
way as the term 'Vaisvānara,' although a common term, yet when qualified
by attributes especially belonging to the highest Self is known to
denote the latter only as possessing the quality of ruling all men; so
the word 'Agni' also when appearing in connexion with special attributes
belonging to the highest Self denotes that Self only. For any quality on
the ground of which 'Agni' may be etymologically explained to denote
ordinary fire--as when e.g. we explain 'agni' as he who 'agre nayati'--
may also, in its highest non-conditioned degree, be ascribed to the
supreme Self. Another difficulty remains. The passage (V, 18, 1) 'yas tv
etam evam prādesamātram abhivimānam,' &c. declares that the non-limited
highest Brahman is limited by the measure of the pradesas, i.e. of the
different spaces-heaven, ether, earth, &c.--which had previously been
said to constitute the limbs of Vaisvānara. How is this possible?




30. On account of definiteness; thus Āsmarathya opines.

The teacher Āsmarathya is of opinion that the text represents the
highest Self as possessing a definite extent, to the end of rendering
the thought of the meditating devotee more definite. That is to say--the
limitation due to the limited extent of heaven, sun, &c. has the purpose
of rendering definite to thought him who pervades (abhi) all this
Universe and in reality transcends all measure (vimāna).--A further
difficulty remains. For what purpose is the highest Brahman here
represented like a man, having a head and limbs?--This point the next
Sūtra elucidates.




31. On account of meditation, Bādari thinks.

The teacher Bādari thinks that the representation in the text of the
supreme Self in the form of a man is for the purpose of devout
meditation. 'He who in this way meditates on that Vaisvānara Self as
"prādesamātra" and "abhivimāna," he eats food in all worlds, in all
beings, in all Selfs.' What this text enjoins is devout meditation for
the purpose of reaching Brahman. 'In this way' means 'as having a human
form.' And 'the eating' of food in all worlds, &c. means the gaining of
intuitional knowledge of Brahman which abides everywhere and is in
itself of the nature of supreme bliss. The special kind of food, i.e.
the special objects of enjoyment which belong to the different Selfs
standing under the influence of karman cannot be meant here; for those
limited objects have to be shunned by those who desire final release. A
further question arises. If Vaisvānara is the highest Self, how can the
text say that the altar is its chest, the grass on the altar its hairs,
and so on? (V, 18, 2.) Such a statement has a sense only if we
understand by Vaisvānara the intestinal fire.--This difficulty the next
Sūtra elucidates.




32. On account of imaginative identification, thus Jaimini thinks; for
thus the text declares.

The teacher Jaimini is of opinion that the altar is stated to be the
chest of Vaisvānara, and so on, in order to effect an imaginative
identification of the offering to Prāna which is daily performed by the
meditating devotees and is the means of pleasing Vaisvānara, having the
heaven and so on for his body, i.e. the highest Self, with the Agnihotra-
offering. For the fruit due to meditation on the highest Self, as well
as the identity of the offering to breath with the Agnihotra, is
declared in the following text, 'He who without knowing this offers the
Agnihotra--that would be as if removing the live coals he were to pour
his libation on dead ashes. But he who offers this Agnihotra with a full
knowledge of its purport, he offers it in all worlds, in all beings, in
all Selfs. As the fibres of the Ishīkā reed when thrown into the fire
are burnt, thus all his sins are burnt.' (V, 24, 1-3.)




33. Moreover, they record him in that.

They (i.e. the Vājasaneyins) speak of him, viz. Vaisvānara who has
heaven for his head, &c.--i.e. the highest Self--as within that, i.e.
the body of the devotee, so as to form the abode of the oblation to
Prāna; viz. in the text,'Of that Vaisvānara Self the head is Sutejas,'
and so on. The context is as follows. The clause 'He who meditates on
the Vaisvānara Self as prādesamātra,' &c. enjoins meditation on the
highest Self having the three worlds for its body, i.e. on Vaisvānara.
The following clause 'he eats food in all worlds' teaches that the
attaining of Brahman is the reward of such meditation. And then the text
proceeds to teach the Agnihotra offered to Prāna, which is something
subsidiary to the meditation taught. The text here establishes an
identity between the members--fire, sun, &c.--of the Vaisvānara enjoined
as object of meditation (which members are called Sutejas, Visvarūpa, &c.
), and parts--viz. head, eye, breath, trunk, bladder, feet--of the
worshipper's body. 'The head is Sutejas'--that means: the head of the
devotee is (identical with) heaven, which is the head of the highest
Self; and so on up to 'the feet,' i.e. the feet of the devotee are
identical with the earth, which constitutes the feet of the highest Self,
The devotee having thus reflected on the highest Self, which has the
three worlds for its body, as present within his own body, thereupon is
told to view his own chest, hair, heart, mind and mouth as identical
with the altar, grass and the other things which are required for the
Agnihotra; further to identify the oblation to Prāna with the Agnihotra,
and by means of this Prāna-agnihotra to win the favour of Vaisvānara, i.
e. the highest Self. The final--conclusion then remains that Vaisvānara
is none other than the highest Self, the supreme Person.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'Vaisvānara.'




THIRD PĀDA.

1. The abode of heaven, earth, &c. (is the highest Self), on account of
terms which are its own.

The followers of the Atharva-veda have the following text, 'He in whom
the heaven, the earth and the sky are woven, the mind also, with all the
vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words; he is
the bank (setu) of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). The doubt here
arises whether the being spoken of as the abode of heaven, earth, and so
on, is the individual soul or the highest Self.

The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he remarks, in
the next sloka, 'where like spokes in the nave of a wheel the arteries
meet, he moves about within, becoming manifold,' the word 'where' refers
back to the being which in the preceding sloka had been called the abode
of heaven, earth, and so on, the clause beginning with 'where' thus
declaring that that being is the basis of the arteries; and the next
clause declares that same being to become manifold or to be born in many
ways. Now, connexion with the arteries is clearly characteristic of the
individual soul; and so is being born in many forms, divine and so on.
Moreover, in the very sloka under discussion it is said that that being
is the abode of the mind and the five vital airs, and this also is a
characteristic attribute of the individual soul. It being, on these
grounds, ascertained that the text refers to the individual soul we must
attempt to reconcile therewith, as well as we can, what is said about
its being the abode of heaven, earth, &c.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. That which is described
as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is none other than the highest
Brahman, on account of a term which is 'its own,' i.e. which specially
belongs to it. The clause we have in view is 'he is the bank of the
Immortal.' This description applies to the highest Brahman only, which
alone is, in all Upanishads, termed the cause of the attainment of
Immortality; cp. e.g. 'Knowing him thus a man becomes immortal; there is
no other path to go' (Sve. Up. III, 8). The term 'setu' is derived from
_si_, which means to bind, and therefore means that which binds, i.e.
makes one to attain immortality; or else it may be understood to mean
that which leads towards immortality that lies beyond the ocean of
samsāra, in the same way as a bank or bridge (setu) leads to the further
side of a river.--Moreover the word 'Self (ātman) (which, in the text
under discussion, is also applied to that which is the abode of heaven,
earth, &c.), without any further qualification, primarily denotes
Brahman only; for 'ātman' comes from _āp_, to reach, and means that
which 'reaches' all other things in so far as it rules them. And further
on (II, 2, 7) there are other terms, 'all knowing,' 'all cognising,'
which also specially belong to the highest Brahman only. This Brahman
may also be represented as the abode of the arteries; as proved e.g. by
Mahānār. Up. (XI, 8-12), 'Surrounded by the arteries he hangs ... in the
middle of this pointed flame there dwells the highest Self.' Of that
Self it may also be said that it is born in many ways; in accordance
with texts such as 'not born, he is born in many ways; the wise know the
place of his birth.' For in order to fit himself to be a refuge for
gods, men, &c. the supreme Person, without however putting aside his
true nature, associates himself with the shape, make, qualities and
works of the different classes of beings, and thus is born in many ways.
Smriti says the same: 'Though being unborn, of non-perishable nature,
the Lord of all beings, yet presiding over my Prakriti I am born by my
own mysterious power' (Bha. Gī. IV, 6). Of the mind also and the other
organs of the individual soul the highest Self is strictly the abode;
for it is the abode of everything.--The next Sūtra supplies a further
reason.




2. And on account of its being declared that to which the released have
to resort.

The Person who is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is also
declared by the text to be what is to be reached by those who are
released from the bondage of Samsāra existence. 'When the seer sees the
brilliant maker and Lord as the Person who has his source in Brahman,
then possessing true knowledge he shakes off good and evil, and, free
from passion, reaches the highest oneness' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3). 'As the
flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and form, thus a
wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is
higher than the high' (III, 2, 8). For it is only those freed from the
bondage of Samsāra who shake off good and evil, are free from passion,
and freed from name and form.

For the Samsāra state consists in the possession of name and form, which
is due to connexion with non-sentient matter, such connexion springing
from good and evil works. The Person therefore who is the abode of
heaven, earth, &c., and whom the text declares to be the aim to be
reached by those who, having freed themselves from good and evil, and
hence from all contact with matter, attain supreme oneness with the
highest Brahman, can be none other than this highest Brahman itself.

This conclusion, based on terms exclusively applicable to the highest
Brahman, is now confirmed by reference to the absence of terms specially
applicable to the individual soul.




3. Not that which is inferred, on account of the absence of terms
denoting it, and (so also not) the bearer of the Prānas (i. e. the
individual soul).

As the section under discussion does not treat of the Pradhāna, there
being no terms referring to that, so it is with regard to the individual
soul also. In the text of the Sūtra we have to read either anumānam, i.
e. 'inference,' in the sense of 'object of inference,' or else ānumānam,
'object of inference'; what is meant being in both cases the Pradhana
inferred to exist by the Sānkhyas.




4. On account of the declaration of difference.

'On the same tree man sits immersed in grief, bewildered by "anīsā"; but
when he sees the other one, the Lord, contented, and his glory; then his
grief passes away' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 2). This, and similar texts, speak
of that one, i.e. the one previously described as the abode of heaven,
earth, &c., as different from the individual soul.--The text means--the
individual soul grieves, being bewildered by her who is not 'īsa,' i.e.
Prakriti, the object of fruition. But its grief passes away when it sees
him who is other than itself, i.e. the beloved Lord of all, and his
greatness which consists in his ruling the entire world.




5. On account of the subject-matter.

It has been already shown, viz. under I, 2, 21, that the highest Brahman
constitutes the initial topic of the Upanishad. And by the arguments set
forth in the previous Sūtras of the present Pāda, we have removed all
suspicion as to the topic started being dropped in the body of the
Upanishad.




6. And on account of abiding and eating.

'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them
eats the sweet fruit; without eating, the other looks on' (Mu. Up. III,
1, 1). This text declares that one enjoys the fruit of works while the
other, without enjoying, shining abides within the body. Now this
shining being which does not enjoy the fruit of works can only be the
being previously described as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., and
characterised as all knowing, the bridge of immortality, the Self of all;
it can in no way be the individual Self which, lamenting, experiences
the results of its works. The settled conclusion, therefore, is that the
abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is none other than the highest Self.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'heaven, earth, and so on.'




7. The bhūman (is the highest Self), as the instruction about it is
additional to that about serenity.

The Chandogas read as follows: 'Where one sees nothing else, hears
nothing else, knows nothing else, that is fulness (bhūman). Where one
sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is
the Little' (Ch. Up. VII, 23, 24).

The term 'bhūman' is derived from _bahu_ (much, many), and primarily
signifies 'muchness.' By 'much' in this connexion, we have however to
understand, not what is numerous, but what is large, for the text uses
the term in contrast with the 'Little' (alpa), i.e. the 'Small.' And the
being qualified as 'large,' we conclude from the context to be the Self;
for this section of the Upanishad at the outset states that he who knows
the Self overcomes grief (VII, 1, 3), then teaches the knowledge of the
bhūman, and concludes by saying that 'the Self is all this' (VII, 25, 2).

The question now arises whether the Self called bhūman is the individual
Self or the highest Self.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former view.
For, he says, to Narada who had approached Sanatkumāra with the desire
to be instructed about the Self, a series of beings, beginning with
'name' and ending with 'breath,' are enumerated as objects of devout
meditation; Nārada asks each time whether there be anything greater than
name, and so on, and each time receives an affirmative reply ('speech is
greater than name,' &c.); when, however, the series has advanced as far
as Breath, there is no such question and reply. This shows that the
instruction about the Self terminates with Breath, and hence we conclude
that breath in this place means the individual soul which is associated
with breath, not a mere modification of air. Also the clauses 'Breath is
father, breath is mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 1), show that breath here is
something intelligent. And this is further proved by the clause 'Slayer
of thy father, slayer of thy mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 2; 3), which
declares that he who offends a father, a mother, &c., as long as there
is breath in them, really hurts them, and therefore deserves reproach;
while no blame attaches to him who offers even the grossest violence to
them after their breath has departed. For a conscious being only is
capable of being hurt, and hence the word 'breath' here denotes such a
being only. Moreover, as it is observed that also in the case of such
living beings as have no vital breath (viz. plants), suffering results,
or does not result, according as injury is inflicted or not, we must for
this reason also decide that the breath spoken of in the text as
something susceptible of injury is the individual soul. It consequently
would be an error to suppose, on the ground of the comparison of Prāna
to the nave of a wheel in which the spokes are set, that Prāna here
denotes the highest Self; for the highest Self is incapable of being
injured. That comparison, on the other hand, is quite in its place, if
we understand by Prāna the individual soul, for the whole aggregate of
non-sentient matter which stands to the individual soul in the relation
of object or instrument of enjoyment, has an existence dependent on the
individual soul. And this soul, there called Prāna, is what the text
later on calls Bhūman; for as there is no question and reply as to
something greater than Prāna, Prāna continues, without break, to be the
subject-matter up to the mention of bhūman. The paragraphs intervening
between the section on Prāna (VII, 15) and the section on the bhūman
(VII, 23 ff.) are to be understood as follows. The Prāna section closes
with the remark that he who fully knows Prāna is an ativādin, i.e. one
who makes a final supreme declaration. In the next sentence then, 'But
this one in truth is an ativādin who makes a supreme statement by means
of the True,' the clause 'But this one is an ativādin' refers back to
the previously mentioned person who knows the Prāna, and the relative
clause 'who makes,' &c., enjoins on him the speaking of the truth as an
auxiliary element in the meditation on Prāna. The next paragraph, 'When
one understands the truth then one declares the truth,' intimates that
speaking the truth stands in a supplementary relation towards the
cognition of the true nature of the Prāna as described before. For the
accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin
reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due
performance of sacred duties. In order that such duties may be
undertaken, the next paragraphs then teach that bliss constitutes the
nature of the individual soul, previously called Prāna, and finally that
the Bhūman, i.e. the supreme fulness of such bliss, is the proper object
of inquiry. The final purport of the teaching, therefore, is that the
true nature of the individual soul, freed from Nescience, is abundant
bliss--a conclusion which perfectly agrees with the initial statement
that he who knows the Self passes beyond sorrow. That being, therefore,
which has the attribute of being 'bhūman,' is the individual Self. This
being so, it is also intelligible why, further on, when the text
describes the glory and power of the individual Self, it uses the term
'I'; for 'I' denotes just the individual Self: 'I am below, I am above,
&c., I am all this' (VII, 25, 1). This conclusion having been settled,
all remaining clauses must be explained so as to agree with it.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The being characterised
in the text as 'bhūman' is not the individual Self, but the highest Self,
since instruction is given about the bhūman in addition to 'serenity'
(samprasāda). 'Samprasāda' denotes the individual soul, as we know from
the following text, 'Now that "serenity", having risen from out this
body, and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form'
(Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 4). Now in the text under discussion instruction is
given about a being called 'the True,' and possessing the attribute of
'bhūman,' as being something additional to the individual soul; and this
being called 'the True' is none other than the highest Brahman. Just as
in the series of beings beginning with name and ending with breath, each
successive being is mentioned in addition to the preceding one--
wherefrom we conclude that it is something really different from what
precedes; so that being also which is called 'the True,' and which is
mentioned in addition to the individual Self called Prāna, is something
different from the individual Self, and this being called 'the True' is
the same as the Bhūman; in other words, the text teaches that the Bhūman
is the highest Brahman called 'the True.' This the Vrittikāra also
declares: 'But the Bhūman only. The Bhūman is Brahman, because in the
series beginning with name instruction is given about it subsequently to
the individual Self.'

But how do we know that the instruction as to 'the True' is in addition
to, and refers to something different from, the being called Prāna?--The
text, after having declared that he who knows the Prāna is an ativādin,
goes on, 'But really that one is an ativādin who makes a supreme
declaration by means of the True.' The 'but' here clearly separates him
who is an ativādin by means of the True from the previous ativādin, and
the clause thus does not cause us to recognise him who is ativādin by
means of Prāna; hence 'the True' which is the cause of the latter
ativādin being what he is must be something different from the Prāna
which is the cause of the former ativādin's quality.--But we have
maintained above that the text enjoins the speaking of 'the True' merely
as an auxiliary duty for him who knows Prāna; and that hence the Prāna
continues to be the general subject-matter!--This contention is
untenable, we reply. The conjunction 'but' shows that the section gives
instruction about a new ativādin, and does not merely declare that the
ativādin previously mentioned has to speak the truth. It is different
with texts such as 'But that one indeed is an Agnihotrin who speaks the
truth'; there we have no knowledge of any further Agnihotrin, and
therefore must interpret the text as enjoining truthfulness as an
obligation incumbent on the ordinary Agnihotrin. In the text under
discussion, on the other hand, we have the term 'the True', which makes
us apprehend that there is a further ativādin different from the
preceding one; and we know that that term is used to denote the highest
Brahman, as e.g. in the text, 'The True, knowledge, the Infinite is
Brahman.' The ativādin who takes his stand on this Brahman, therefore,
must be viewed as different from the preceding ativādin; and a
difference thus established on the basis of the meaning and connexion of
the different sentences cannot be set aside. An ativādin ('one who in
his declaration goes beyond') is one who maintains, as object of his
devotion, something which, as being more beneficial to man, surpasses
other objects of devotion. The text at first declares that he who knows
Prāna, i.e. the individual soul, is an ativādin, in so far as the object
of his devout meditation surpasses the objects from name up to hope; and
then goes on to say that, as that object also is not of _supreme_
benefit to man, an ativādin in the full sense of the term is he only who
proclaims as the object of his devotion the highest Brahman, which alone
is of supreme unsurpassable benefit to man. 'He who is an ativādin by
the True,' i.e. he who is an ativādin characterised by the highest
Brahman as the object of his meditation. For the same reason the pupil
entreats, 'Sir, may I be an ativādin with the True!' and the teacher
replies, 'But we must desire to know the True!'--Moreover, the text, VII,
26, I, 'Prāna springs from the Self,' declares the origination from the
Self of the being called Prāna; and from this we infer that the Self
which is introduced as the general subject-matter of the section, in the
clause 'He who knows the Self passes beyond death,' is different from
the being called Prāna.--The contention that, because there is no
question and answer as to something greater than Prāna, the instruction
about the Self must be supposed to come to an end with the instruction
about Prāna, is by no means legitimate. For that a new subject is
introduced is proved, not only by those questions and answers; it may be
proved by other means also, and we have already explained such means.
The following is the reason why the pupil does not ask the question
whether there is anything greater than Prāna. With regard to the non-
sentient objects extending from name to hope--each of which surpasses
the preceding one in so far as it is more beneficial to man--the teacher
does not declare that he who knows them is an ativādin; when, however,
he comes to the individual soul, there called Prāna, the knowledge of
whose true nature he considers highly beneficial, he expressly says that
'he who sees this, notes this, understands this is an ativādin' (VII, 15,
4). The pupil therefore imagines that the instruction about the Self is
now completed, and hence asks no further question. The teacher on the
other hand, holding that even that knowledge is not the highest,
spontaneously continues his teaching, and tells the pupil that truly he
only is an ativādin who proclaims the supremely and absolutely
beneficial being which is called 'the True,' i.e. the highest Brahman.
On this suggestion of the highest Brahman the pupil, desirous to learn
its true nature and true worship, entreats the teacher, 'Sir, may I
become an ativādin by the True!' Thereupon the teacher--in order to help
the pupil to become an ativādin,--a position which requires previous
intuition of Brahman--enjoins on him meditation on Brahman which is the
means to attain intuition ('You must desire to know the True!'); next
recommends to him reflection (manana) which is the means towards
meditation ('You must desire to understand reflection'); then--taking it
for granted that the injunction of reflection implies the injunction of
'hearing' the sacred texts which is the preliminary for reflecting--
advises him to cherish faith in Brahman which is the preliminary means
towards hearing ('You must desire to understand faith'); after that
tells him to practise, as a preliminary towards faith, reliance on
Brahman ('You must desire to understand reliance'); next admonishes him,
to apply himself to 'action,' i.e. to make the effort which is a
preliminary requisite for all the activities enumerated ('You must
desire to understand action'). Finally, in order to encourage the pupil
to enter on all this, the teacher tells him to recognise that bliss
constitutes the nature of that Brahman which is the aim of all his
effort ('You must desire to understand bliss'); and bids him to realise
that the bliss which constitutes Brahman's nature is supremely large and
full ('You must endeavour to understand the "bhūman," i.e. the supreme
fulness of bliss'). And of this Brahman, whose nature is absolute bliss,
a definition is then given as follows,' Where one sees nothing else,
hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is bhūman.' This means--
when the meditating devotee realises the intuition of this Brahman,
which consists of absolute bliss, he does not see anything apart from it,
since the whole aggregate of things is contained within the essence and
outward manifestation (vibhūti) of Brahman. He, therefore, who has an
intuitive knowledge of Brahman as qualified by its attributes and its
vibhūti--which also is called aisvarya, i.e. lordly power--and
consisting of supreme bliss, sees nothing else since there _is_ nothing
apart from Brahman; and sees, i.e. feels no pain since all possible
objects of perception and feeling are of the nature of bliss or pleasure;
for pleasure is just that which, being experienced, is agreeable to
man's nature.--But an objection is raised, it is an actual fact that
this very world is perceived as something different from Brahman, and as
being of the nature of pain, or at the best, limited pleasure; how then
can it be perceived as being a manifestation of Brahman, as having
Brahman for its Self, and hence consisting of bliss?--The individual
souls, we reply, which are under the influence of karman, are conscious
of this world as different from Brahman, and, according to their
individual karman, as either made up of pain or limited pleasure. But as
this view depends altogether on karman, to him who has freed himself
from Nescience in the form of karman, this same world presents itself as
lying within the intuition of Brahman, together with its qualities and
vibhūti, and hence as essentially blissful. To a man troubled with
excess of bile the water he drinks has a taste either downright
unpleasant or moderately pleasant, according to the degree to which his
health is affected; while the same water has an unmixedly pleasant taste
for a man in good health. As long as a boy is not aware that some
plaything is meant to amuse him, he does not care for it; when on the
other hand he apprehends it as meant to give him delight, the thing
becomes very dear to him. In the same way the world becomes an object of
supreme love to him who recognises it as having Brahman for its Self,
and being a mere plaything of Brahman--of Brahman, whose essential
nature is supreme bliss, and which is a treasure-house, as it were, of
numberless auspicious qualities of supreme excellence. He who has
reached such intuition of Brahman, sees nothing apart from it and feels
no pain. This the concluding passages of the text set forth in detail,
'He who sees, perceives and understands this, loves the Self, delights
in the Self, revels in the Self, rejoices in the Self; he becomes a Self
ruler, he moves and rules in all worlds according to his pleasure. But
those who have a different knowledge from this, they are ruled by others,
they live in perishable worlds, they do not move in all the worlds
according to their liking.' 'They are ruled by others,' means 'they are
in the power of karman.' And further on, 'He who sees this does not see
death, nor illness, nor pain; he who sees this sees everything and
obtains everything everywhere.'

That Brahman is of the nature of supreme bliss has been shown in detail
under I, 1, 12 ff.--The conclusion from all this is that, as the text
applies the term 'bhūman' to what was previously called the Real or True,
and which is different from the individual soul there called Prāna, the
bhūman is the highest Brahman.




8. And on account of the suitability of the attributes.

The attributes also which the text ascribes to the bhūman suit the
highest Self only. So immortality ('The Bhūman is immortal,' VII, 24, 1);
not being based on something else ('it rests in its own greatness');
being the Self of all ('the bhūman is below,' &c., 'it is all this');
being that which produces all ('from the Self there springs breath,' &c.
). All these attributes can be reconciled with the highest Self only.--
The Pūrvapakshin has pointed to the text which declares the 'I' to be
the Self of all (VII, 25, 1); but what that text really teaches is
meditation on Brahman under the aspect of the 'I.' This appears from the
introductory clause 'Now follows the instruction with regard to the I.'
That of the 'I,' i.e. the individual Self, also the highest Self is the
true Self, scripture declares in several places, so e.g. in the text
about the inward Ruler (Bri. Up. III, 7). As therefore the individual
soul finds its completion in the highest Self only, the word 'I' also
extends in its connotation up to the highest Self; and the instruction
about the 'I' which is given in the text has thus for its object
meditation on the highest Self in so far as having the individual Self
for its body. As the highest Self has all beings for its body and thus
is the Self of all, it is the Self of the individual soul also; and this
the text declares in the passage beginning 'Now follows the instruction
about the Self,' and ending 'Self is all this.' In order to prove this
the text declares that everything originates from the highest Self which
forms the Self of the individual soul also, viz. in the passage 'From
the Self of him who sees this, perceives this, knows this, there springs
breath,' &c.--that means: breath and all other beings spring from the
highest Self which abides within the Self of the meditating devotee as
its inner ruler. Hence, the text means to intimate, meditation should be
performed on the 'I,' in order thus firmly to establish the cognition
that the highest Self has the 'I,' i.e. the individual soul for its body.

It is thus an established conclusion that the bhūman is the highest Self.
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'fulness.'




9. The Imperishable (is Brahman), on account of its supporting that
which is the end of ether.

The Vājasaneyins, in the chapter recording the questions asked by Gārgī,
read as follows: 'He said, O Gārgī, the Brāhmanas call that the
Imperishable. It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, it
is not red, not fluid, it is without a shadow,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8).
A doubt here arises whether that Imperishable be the Pradhāna, or the
individual soul, or the highest Self.--The Pradhāna, it may be
maintained in the first place. For we see that in passages such as
'higher than that which is higher than the Imperishable' the term
'Imperishable' actually denotes the Pradhāna; and moreover the qualities
enumerated, viz. not being either coarse or fine, &c., are
characteristic of the Pradhāna.--But, an objection is raised, in texts
such as 'That knowledge by which the Imperishable is apprehended' (Mu.
Up. I, 1, 5), the word 'Imperishable' is seen to denote the highest
Brahman!--In cases, we reply, where the meaning of a word may be
determined on the basis either of some other means of proof or of
Scripture, the former meaning presents itself to the mind first, and
hence there is no reason why such meaning should not be accepted.--But
how do you know that the ether of the text is not ether in the ordinary
sense?--From the description, we reply, given of it in the text, 'That
above the heavens,' &c. There it is said that all created things past,
present and future rest on ether as their basis; ether cannot therefore
be taken as that elementary substance which itself is comprised in the
sphere of things created. We therefore must understand by 'ether' matter
in its subtle state, i.e. the Pradhāna; and the Imperishable which
thereupon is declared to be the support of that Pradhāna, hence cannot
itself be the Pradhāna.--Nor is there any force in the argument that a
sense established by some other means of proof presents itself to the
mind more immediately than a sense established by Scripture; for as the
word 'akshara' (i.e. the non-perishable) intimates its sense directly
through the meaning of its constituent elements other means of proof
need not be regarded at all.

Moreover Yājńavalkya had said previously that the ether is the cause and
abode of all things past, present and future, and when Gārgī thereupon
asks him in what that ether 'is woven,' i.e. what is the causal
substance and abode of ether, he replies 'the Imperishable.' Now this
also proves that by the 'Imperishable' we have to understand the
Pradhāna which from other sources is known to be the causal substance,
and hence the abode, of all effected things whatsoever.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The 'Imperishable' is
the highest Brahman, because the text declares it to support that which
is the end, i. e. that which lies beyond ether, viz. unevolved matter
(avyākritam). The ether referred to in Gārgī's question is not ether in
the ordinary sense, but what lies beyond ether, viz. unevolved matter,
and hence the 'Imperishable' which is said to be the support of that
'unevolved' cannot itself be the 'unevolved,' i.e. cannot be the
Pradhāna. Let us, then, the Pūrvapakshin resumes, understand by the
'Imperishable,' the individual soul; for this may be viewed as the
support of the entire aggregate of non-sentient matter, inclusive of the
elements in their subtle condition; and the qualities of non-coarseness,
&c., are characteristic of that soul also. Moreover there are several
texts in which the term 'Imperishable' is actually seen to denote the
individual soul; so e.g. 'the non-evolved' is merged in the
'Imperishable'; 'That of which the non-evolved is the body; that of
which the Imperishable is the body'; 'All the creatures are the
Perishable, the non-changing Self is called the Imperishable' (Bha. GĪ.
XV, 16).

To this alternative primā facie view the next Sūtra replies.




10. And this (supporting) (springs) from command.

The text declares that this supporting of ether and all other things
proceeds from command. 'In the command of that Imperishable sun and moon
stand, held apart; in the command of that Imperishable heaven and earth
stand, held apart,' &c. Now such supreme command, through which all
things in the universe are held apart, cannot possibly belong to the
individual soul in the state either of bondage or of release. The
commanding 'Imperishable' therefore is none other than the supreme
Person.




11. And on account of the exclusion of (what is of) another nature (than
Brahman).

Another nature, i. e. the nature of the Pradhāna, and so on. A
supplementary passage excludes difference on the part of the
Imperishable from the supreme Person. 'That Imperishable, O Gārgī, is
unseen but seeing; unheard but hearing; unthought but thinking; unknown
but knowing. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but
it, nothing that thinks but it, nothing that knows but it. In that
Imperishable, O Gārgī, the ether is woven, warp and woof.' Here the
declaration as to the Imperishable being what sees, hears, &c. excludes
the non-intelligent Pradhāna; and the declaration as to its being all-
seeing, &c. while not seen by any one excludes the individual soul. This
exclusion of what has a nature other than that of the highest Self thus
confirms the view of that Self being meant.--Or else the Sūtra may be
explained in a different way, viz. 'On account of the exclusion of the
existence of another.' On this alternative the text 'There is nothing
that sees but it,' &c., is to be understood as follows: 'while this
Imperishable, not seen by others but seeing all others, forms the basis
of all things different from itself; there is no other principle which,
unseen by the Imperishable but seeing it, could form _its_ basis,' i.e.
the text would exclude the existence of any other thing but the
Imperishable, and thus implicitly deny that the Imperishable is either
the Pradhāna or the individual Self.--Moreover the text 'By the command
of that Imperishable men praise those who give, the gods follow the
Sacrficer, the fathers the Darvī-offering,' declares the Imperishable to
be that on the command of which there proceed all works enjoined by
Scripture and Smriti. such as sacrificing, giving, &c., and this again
shows that the Imperishable must be Brahman, the supreme Person. Again,
the subsequent _passus_, 'Whosoever without knowing that Imperishable,'
&c., declares that ignorance of the Imperishable leads to the Samsāra,
while knowledge of it helps to reach Immortality: this also proves that
the Imperishable is the highest Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'the Imperishable.'




12. On account of his being designated as the object of seeing, he (i.e.
the highest Self) (is that object).

The followers of the Atharva-veda, in the section containing the
question asked by Satyakāma, read as follows: 'He again who meditates
with this syllable Aum of three Mātrās on the highest Person, he comes
to light and to the sun. As a snake frees itself from its skin, so he
frees himself from evil. He is led up by the Sāman verses to the Brahma-
world; he sees the person dwelling in the castle who is higher than the
individual souls concreted with bodies and higher (than those)' (Pra. Up.
V, 2). Here the terms 'he meditates' and 'he sees' have the same sense,
'seeing' being the result of devout meditation; for according to the
principle expressed in the text (Ch. Up. III, 14) 'According as man's
thought is in this world,' what is reached by the devotee is the object
of meditation; and moreover the text exhibits the same object, viz. 'the
highest Person' in connexion with both verbs.

The doubt here presents itself whether the highest Person in this text
be the so-called four-faced Brahmā, the Lord of the mundane egg who
represents the individual souls in their collective aspect, or the
supreme Person who is the Lord of all.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the
former view. For, he argues, on the introductory question, 'He who here
among men should meditate until death on the syllable Om, what would he
obtain by it?' The text first declares that he who meditates on that
syllable as having one Mātrā, obtains the world of men; and next, that
he who meditates on it as having two Mātrās obtains the world of the
atmosphere. Hence the Brahma-world, which the text after that represents
as the object reached by him who meditates on Om as having three
syllables, must be the world of Brahmā Katurmukha who is constituted by
the aggregate of the individual souls. What the soul having reached that
world sees, therefore is the same Brahmā Katurmukha; and thus only the
attribute 'etasmāj' jīvaghanāt parāt param' is suitable; for the
collective soul, i. e. Brahmā Katurmukha, residing in the Brahma-world
is higher (para) than the distributive or discrete soul (jīva) which is
concreted (ghanī-bhūta) with the body and sense-organs, and at the same
time is higher (para) than these. The highest Person mentioned in the
text, therefore, is Brahmāa Katurmukha; and the qualities mentioned
further on, such as absence of decay, &c., must be taken in such a way
as to agree with that Brahmā.

To this primā facie view the Sūtra replies that the object of seeing is
He, i.e. the highest Self, on account of designation. The text clearly
designates the object of seeing as the highest Self. For the concluding
sloka, which refers to that object of seeing, declares that 'by means of
the Omkāra he who knows reaches that which is tranquil, free from decay,
immortal, fearless, the highest'--all which attributes properly belong
to the highest Self only, as we know from texts such as 'that is the
Immortal, that is the fearless, that is Brahman' (Ch. Up. IV, 15, i).
The qualification expressed in the clause 'etasmāj_ _jīva.--ghanāt,' &c.
may also refer to the highest Self only, not to Brahmā Katurmukha; for
the latter is himself comprehended by the term 'jīvaghana.' For that
term denotes all souls which are embodied owing to karman; and that
Katurmukha is one of those we know from texts such as 'He who first
creates Brahmā' (Svet. Up. VI, 18). Nor is there any strength in the
argument that, since the Brahma-world mentioned in the text is known to
be the world of Katurmukha, as it follows next on the world of the
atmosphere, the being abiding there must needs be Katurmukha. We rather
argue as follows--as from the concluding clause 'that which is tranquil,
free from decay,' &c., we ascertain that the object of intuition is the
highest Brahman, the Brahma-world spoken of as the abode of the seeing
devotee cannot be the perishable world of Brahmā Katurmukha. A further
reason for this conclusion is supplied by what the text says about 'him
who is freed from all evil being led up by the Sāman verses to the world
of Brahman'; for the place reached by him who is freed from all evil
cannot be the mere abode of Katurmukha. Hence also the concluding sloka
says with reference to that Brahma-world 'that which the wise teach':
what the wise see and teach is the abode of the highest, of Vishnu; cp.
the text 'the wise ever see that highest abode of Vishnu.' Nor is it
even strictly true that the world of Brahmā follows on the atmosphere,
for the svarga-world and several others lie between the two.

We therefore shortly explain the drift of the whole chapter as follows.
At the outset of the reply given to Satyakāma there is mentioned, in
addition to the highest (para) Brahman, a lower (apara) Brahman. This
lower or effected (kārya) Brahman is distinguished as twofold, being
connected either with this terrestrial world or yonder, non-terrestrial,
world. Him who meditates on the Pranava as having one syllable, the text
declares to obtain a reward in this world--he reaches the world of men.
He, on the other hand, who meditates on the Pranava as having two
syllables is said to obtain his reward in a super-terrestrial sphere--he
reaches the world of the atmosphere. And he finally who, by means of the
trisyllabic Pranava which denotes the highest Brahman, meditates on this
very highest Brahman, is said to reach that Brahman, i. e. the supreme
Person.--The object of seeing is thus none other than the highest Self.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of the 'object of seeing.'




13. The small (ether) (is Brahman), on account of the subsequent
(arguments).

The Chandogas have the following text, 'Now in that city of Brahman
there is the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether. Now
what is within that small ether that is to be sought for, that is to be
understood' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 1).--The question here arises whether that
small ether (space) within the lotus of the heart be the material
clement called ether, or the individual Self, or the highest Self.--The
first view presenting itself is that the element is meant, for the
reason that the word 'ether' is generally used in that sense; and
because the clause 'what is within that small ether' shows that the
ether mentioned constitutes the abode of something else that is to be
enquired into.--This view is set aside by the Sūtra. The small ether
within the heart is the highest Brahman, on account of the subsequent
reasons, contained in clauses of the same section. The passage 'That
Self which is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free
from grief, free from hunger and thirst, whose wishes and purposes come
true' (VIII, 7, 1) ascribes to that small ether qualities--such as
unconditioned Selfhood, freedom from evil, &c.--which clearly show that
ether to be the highest Brahman. And this conclusion is confirmed by
what other texts say about him who knows the small ether attaining the
power of realising his own wishes,'Those who depart from hence having
come to know the Self and those real wishes, for them there is freedom
in all worlds'; and 'whatever object he desires, by his mere will it
comes to him; having obtained it he is happy' (Ch, Up. VIII, 1, 6; 2, 9).
If moreover the ether within the heart were the elemental ether, the
comparison instituted in the passage 'As large as that (elemental) ether
is, so large is this ether within the heart' would be wholly
inappropriate. Nor must it be said that that comparison rests on the
limitation of the ether within the heart (so that the two terms compared
would be the limited elemental ether within the heart, and the universal
elemental ether); for there still would remain the inappropriate
assertion that the ether within the heart is the abode of heaven, earth
and all other things.--But, an objection is raised, also on the
alternative of the small ether being the highest Brahman, the comparison
to the universal elemental ether is unsuitable; for scripture explicitly
states that the highest Self is (not as large but) larger than
everything else, 'larger than the earth, larger than the sky,' &c. (Ch.
Up. III, 14, 3). Not so, we reply; what the text says as to the ether
within the heart being as large as the universal ether is meant (not to
make a conclusive statement as to its extent but only) to negative that
smallness of the ether which is established by its abiding within the
heart. Similarly we say 'the sun moves with the speed of an arrow'; the
sun indeed moves much faster than an arrow, but what our assertion means
is merely that he does not move slowly.--But, a further doubt is started,
the passage 'That Self which is free from sin,' &c. does not appear to
refer back to the small ether within the heart. For the text makes a
distinction between that ether and that within that ether which it
declares to be the due object of search and enquiry. This latter object
therefore is the topic of discussion, and when the text says later on
'That Self, free from sin, &c. is to be searched out' we must understand
it to refer to the same object of search.--This would be so, we reply,
if the text did not distinguish the small ether and that which abides
within it; but as a matter of fact it does distinguish the two. The
connexion is as follows. The text at first refers to the body of the
devotee as the city of Brahman, the idea being that Brahman is present
therein as object of meditation; and then designates an organ of that
body, viz. the small lotus-shaped heart as the palace of Brahman. It
then further refers to Brahman--the all knowing, all powerful, whose
love towards his devotees is boundless like the ocean--as the small
ether within the heart, meaning thereby that Brahman who for the benefit
of his devotees is present within that palace should be meditated upon
as of minute size, and finally--in the clause 'that is to be searched
out'--enjoins as the object of meditation that which abides in that
Brahman, i.e. on the one hand, its essential freedom from all evil
qualities, and on the other the whole treasure of its auspicious
qualities, its power of realising its wishes and so on. The 'that' (in
'that is to be searched out') enjoins as objects of search the small
ether, i.e. Brahman itself as well as the qualities abiding within it.--
But how, it may be asked, do you know that the word 'that' really refers
to both, viz. the highest Brahman, there called 'small ether,' and the
qualities abiding in it, and that hence the clause enjoins an enquiry
into both these entities?--Listen, attentively, we reply, to our
explanation! The clause 'As large as this ether is, so large is this
ether within the heart' declares the exceeding greatness of the small
ether; the clause 'Both heaven and earth are contained within it' up to
'lightning and stars' declares that same small ether to be the abode of
the entire world; and the clause 'And whatever there is for him in this
world, and whatever there is not, all that is contained within it'
declares that whatever objects of enjoyment there are for the devotee in
this world, and whatever other objects there are not for him, i.e. are
merely wishes but not obtained by him, all those objects are contained
within that same small ether. The text next declares that that small
ether, although dwelling within the heart which is a part of the body,
is not affected by the body's old age and decay, for being extremely
minute it is not capable of change; and adds 'that true being is the
Brahman-city,' i.e. that Reality which is the cause of all is the city
called Brahman, i.e. the abode of the entire Universe. The following
clause 'in it all desires are contained' again referring to the small
ether ('in it') declares that in it all desires, i.e. all desirable
qualities are contained. The text next proceeds to set forth that the
small ether possesses Selfhood and certain desirable auspicious
qualities-this is done in the passage 'It is the Self free from sin' &c.
up to 'whose purposes realise themselves.' The following section--'And
as here on earth' down to 'for them there is freedom in all the worlds'--
declares that those who do not know those eight qualities and the Self,
called 'small ether,' which is characterised by them, and who perform
actions aiming at objects of enjoyment different from that Self, obtain
perishable results only, and do not attain the power of realising their
wishes; while those on the other hand who know the Self called 'small
ether' and the qualities abiding within it, through the grace of that
very same highest Self, obtain all their wishes and the power of
realising their purposes. On the ground of this connected consideration
of the whole chapter we are able to decide that the text enjoins as the
object of search and enquiry both the highest Brahman and the whole body
of auspicious qualities abiding within it. This the Vākyakāra also
renders clear in the passage beginning 'In the text "what is within
that" there is designation of wishes (i.e. desirable qualities).'--For
all these reasons the small ether is the highest Brahman.




14. On account of the going and of the word; for thus it is seen; and
(there is) an inferential sign.

'As people who do not know the country walk again and again over a gold
treasure' &c., 'thus do all these creatures day after day go into _that_
Brahma-world' (Ch. Up. VIII, 3, 2). The circumstance, here stated, of
all individual souls going to a place which the qualification _'that'_
connects with the subject-matter of the whole chapter, i.e. the small
ether; and the further circumstance of the goal of their going being
called the Brahma-world, also prove that the small ether is none other
than the highest Brahman.--But in what way do these two points prove
what they are claimed to prove?--'For thus it is seen'; the Sūtra adds.
For we see it stated in other texts, that all individual souls go daily
to Brahman, viz. in the state of deep sleep, 'All these creatures having
become united with the True do not know that they are united with the
True'; 'Having come back from the True they know not that they have come
back from the True' (Ch. Up. VI, 9, 2; 10, 2). And in the same way we
see that the word 'Brahma-world' denotes the highest Brahman; so e.g.
'this is the Brahma-world, O King' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 32).--The Sūtra
subjoins a further reason. Even if the going of the souls to Brahman
were not seen in other texts, the fact that the text under discussion
declares the individual souls to abide in Brahman in the state of deep
sleep, enjoying freedom from all pain and trouble just as if they were
merged in the pralaya state, is a sufficient 'inferential sign' to prove
that the 'small ether' is the highest Brahman. And similarly the term
'Brahma-world' as exhibited in the text under discussion, if understood
as denoting co-ordination (i.e. 'that world which is Brahman'), is
sufficient to prove by itself that the 'small ether'--to which that term
is applied--is the highest Brahman; it therefore is needless to appeal
to other passages. That this explanation of 'Brahma-world' is preferable
to the one which understands by Brahma-world 'the world of Brahman' is
proved by considerations similar to those by which the Pū. Mī. Sūtras
prove that 'Nishāda-sthapati' means a headman who at the same time is a
Nishāda.--Another explanation of the passage under discussion may also
be given. What is said there about all these creatures daily 'going into
the Brahma-world,' may not refer at all to the state of deep sleep, but
rather mean that although 'daily going into the Brahman-world,' i. e.
although at all time moving above the small ether, i. e. Brahman which
as the universal Self is everywhere, yet all these creatures not knowing
Brahman do not find, i.e. obtain it; just as men not knowing the place
where a treasure is hidden do not find it, although they constantly pass
over it. This constant moving about on the part of ignorant creatures on
the surface, as it were, of the small ether abiding within as their
inward Ruler, proves that small ether to be the highest Brahman. That
the highest Brahman abides within as the inner Self of creatures which
dwell in it and are ruled by it, we are told in other texts also, so e.g.
in the Antaryāmin-brāhmana. 'He who dwells in the Self, within the Self,
whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the
Self within; unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing' (Bri. Up. III, 7,
22; 23).--On this interpretation we explain the last part of the Sūtra
as follows. Even if other texts did not refer to it, this daily moving
about on the part of ignorant creatures, on the ether within the heart--
which the comparison with the treasure of gold shows to be the supreme
good of man--, is in itself a sufficient proof for the small ether being
Brahman.




15. And on account of there being observed in that (small ether),
supporting which is a greatness of that (i. e. Brahman).

In continuation of the passage 'It is the Self free from Sin,' &c.,
which refers to the small ether, the text says: 'it is a bank, a
limitary support, that these worlds may not be confounded.' What the
text here says about the small ether supporting the world proves it to
be the highest Brahman; for to support the world is the glory of Brahman.
Compare 'He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of
all things. He is a bank and a boundary, so that these worlds may not be
confounded' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22); 'By the command of that Imperishable,
O Gārgī, heaven and earth stand, held apart' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 9). Now
this specific greatness of the highest Brahman, which consists in its
supporting the world, is also observed in the small ether--which proves
the latter to be none other than Brahman.




16. And on account of the settled meaning.

The word 'ether,' moreover, is known to have, among other meanings, that
of Brahman. Compare 'For who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if
that ether were not bliss?' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'All these beings take
their rise from the ether' (Ch. Up. I, 9, 1). It has to be kept in view
that in the text under discussion the meaning 'Brahman' is supported by
what is said about the qualities of the small ether--viz. freedom from
sin, &c.--and hence is stronger than the other meaning--, according to
which ākāsa signifies the elemental ether.

So far the Sūtras have refuted the view of the small ether being the
element. They now enter on combating the notion that the small ether may
possibly be the individual soul.




17. If it be said that on account of reference to the other one he is
meant; we say no, on account of impossibility.

An objection is raised to the argumentation that, on account of
complementary passages, the small ether must be explained to mean the
highest Self.

For, the objector says, a clear reference to him who is 'other' than the
highest Self, i.e. to the individual soul, is contained in the following
passage (VIII, 12, 3): 'Thus does that serenity (samprasāda), having
risen from this body and approached the highest light, appear in its own
form.' 'That is the Self,' he said. 'That is the immortal, the fearless,
this is Brahman' (VIII, 7, 3?). We admit that for the different reasons
stated above the ether within the heart cannot be the elemental ether;
but owing to the force of the intimations conveyed by the complementary
passages just quoted, we must adopt the view that what is meant is the
individual soul. And as the word 'ākāsa' may be connected with prakāsa
(light), it may be applied to the individual soul also.--This view is
set aside by the Sūtra. The small ether cannot be the individual soul
because the qualities attributed in the text to the former, viz. freedom
from sin, &c., cannot possibly belong to the individual soul.




18. Should it be said that from a subsequent passage (it appears that
the individual Soul is meant); rather (the soul) in so far as its true
nature has become manifest.

The Pūrvapakshin now maintains that we ascertain from a subsequent
declaration made by Prajāpati that it is just the individual Soul that
possesses freedom from sin and the other qualities enumerated. The whole
teaching of Prajāpati, he says, refers to the individual Soul only.
Indra having heard that Prajāpati had spoken about a Self free from sin,
old age, &c., the enquiry into which enables the soul to obtain all
worlds and desires, approaches Prajāpati with the wish to learn the true
nature of that Self which should be enquired into. Prajāpati thereupon,
wishing to test the capacity of his pupil for receiving true instruction,
gives him successive information about the embodied soul in the state of
waking, dream and dreamless sleep. When he finds that Indra sees no good
in instruction of this kind and thus shows himself fit to receive
instruction about the true nature of the disembodied Self, he explains
to him that the body is a mere abode for a ruling Self; that that
bodiless Self is essentially immortal; and that the soul, as long as it
is joined to a body due to karman, is compelled to experience pleasure
and pain corresponding to its embodied state, while it rises above all
this when it has freed itself from the body (VIII, 12, 1). He then
continues: 'Thus that serenity having risen from this body and
approached the highest light, appears in its own form'; thus teaching
him the true nature, free from a body, of the individual soul. He next
informs him that the 'highest light' which the soul reaches is the
supreme Person ('That is the supreme Person'), and that the soul having
reached that highest light and freed itself from what obscured its own
true nature, obtains in the world of Brahman whatever enjoyments it
desires, and is no longer connected with a body springing from karman
and inseparable from pain and pleasure, or with anything else that
causes distress. ('He moves about there laughing,' &c.). He next
illustrates the connexion with a body, of the soul in the Samsāra state,
by means of a comparison: 'Like as a horse attached to a cart,' &c.
After that he explains that the eye and the other sense-organs are
instruments of knowledge, colour, and so on, the objects of knowledge,
and the individual Self the knowing subject; and that hence that Self is
different from the body and the sense-organs ('Now where the sight has
entered' up to 'the mind is his divine eye'). Next he declares that,
after having divested itself of the body and the senses, the Self
perceives all the objects of its desire by means of its 'divine eye,' i.
e. the power of cognition which constitutes its essential nature ('He by
means of the divine eye,' &c.). He further declares that those who have
true knowledge know the Self as such ('on that Self the devas meditate');
and in conclusion teaches that he who has that true knowledge of the
Self obtains for his reward the intuition of Brahman--which is suggested
by what the text says about the obtaining of all worlds and all desires
('He obtains all worlds and all desires,' &c., up to the end of the
chapter).--It thus appears that the entire chapter proposes as the
object of cognition the individual soul free from sin, and so on. The
qualities, viz. freedom from guilt, &c., may thus belong to the
individual Self, and on this ground we conclude that the small ether is
the individual Self.

This view the second half of the Sūtra sets aside. The two sections,
that which treats of the small ether and that which contains the
teaching of Prajāpati, have different topics. Prajāpati's teaching
refers to the individual soul, whose true nature, with its qualities
such as freedom from evil, &c., is at first hidden by untruth, while
later on, when it has freed itself from the bondage of karman, risen
from the body, and approached the highest light, it manifests itself in
its true form and then is characterised by freedom from all evil and by
other auspicious qualities. In the section treating of the small ether,
on the other hand, we have to do with the small ether, i.e. the highest
Brahman, whose true nature is never hidden, and which therefore is
unconditionally characterised by freedom from evil, and so on.--
Moreover, the daharākāsa-section ascribes to the small ether other
attributes which cannot belong to the individual Self even 'when its
true nature has manifested itself.' The small ether is there called a
bank and support of all worlds; and one of its names,'satyam,' is
explained to imply that it governs all sentient and non-sentient beings.
All this also proves that the small ether is none other than the highest
Self. That the individual soul, 'even when its true nature is manifest,'
cannot be viewed as a bank and support of the worlds, &c., we shall show
under IV, 4.

But if this is so, what then is the meaning of the reference to the
individual soul which is made in the section treating of the small ether,
viz. in the passage, 'Now that serene being, which after having risen
from this body,' &c. (VIII, 3, 4)?

To this question the next Sūtra replies.




19. And the reference has a different meaning.

The text in question declares that the released individual soul when
reaching the highest light, i.e. Brahman, which is free from all sin,
and so on, attains its true nature, which is characterised by similar
freedom from sin, and so on. Now this reference to the individual soul,
as described in the teaching of Prajāpati, has the purpose of giving
instruction (not about the qualities of the individual soul, but) about
the nature of that which is the cause of the qualities of the individual
soul, i.e. the qualities specially belonging to the supreme Person. The
reason why, in the section containing the teaching of Prajāpati,
information is given as to the true nature of the released individual
soul is that such knowledge assists the doctrine referring to the small
ether. For the individual Self which wishes to reach Brahman must know
his own true nature also, so as to realise that he, as being himself
endowed with auspicious qualities, will finally arrive at an intuition
of the highest Brahman, which is a mass of auspicious qualities raised
to the highest degree of excellence. The cognition of the soul's own
true nature is itself comprised in the result of the meditation on
Brahman, and the results which are proclaimed in the teaching of
Prajāpati ('He obtains all worlds and all wishes'; 'He moves about there
laughing,' &c.) thus really are results of the knowledge of the small
ether.




20. If it be said, owing to the scriptural declaration of smallness;
that has been explained.

The text describes the ether within the heart as being of small compass,
and this agrees indeed with the individual soul which elsewhere is
compared to the point of an awl, but not with Brahman, which is greater
than everything.--The reply to this objection has virtually been given
before, viz. under I, 2, 7, where it is said that Brahman may be viewed
as of small size, for the purpose of devout meditation.

It thus remains a settled conclusion that the small ether is none other
but the highest Person who is untouched by even a shadow of imperfection,
and is an ocean of infinite, supremely exalted, qualities--knowledge,
strength, lordly power, &c. The being, on the other hand, which in the
teaching of Prajāpati is described as first having a body due to karman--
as we see from passages such as 'they strike it as it were, they cut it
as it were'--and as afterwards approaching the highest light, and then
manifesting its essential qualities, viz. freedom from sin, &c., is the
individual soul; not the small ether (or Brahman).

The next Sūtra supplies a further reason for this conclusion.




21. And on account of the imitation of that.

The individual soul, free from bondage, and thus possessing the
qualities of freedom from sin, &c., cannot be the small ether, i.e. the
highest Brahman, because it is stated to 'imitate,' i.e. to be equal to
that Brahman. The text making that statement is Mu. Up. III, 1, 3, 'When
the seer (i.e. the individual soul) sees the brilliant maker, the Lord,
the Person who has his source in Brahman; then becoming wise and shaking
off good and evil, he reaches the highest equality, free from passions.'
The being to which the teaching of Prajāpati refers is the 'imitator,' i.
e. the individual soul; the Brahman which is 'imitated' is the small
ether.




22. The same is declared by Smriti also.

Smriti also declares that the transmigrating soul when reaching the
state of Release 'imitates,' i.e. attains supreme equality of attributes
with the highest Brahman. 'Abiding by this knowledge they, attaining to
equality of attributes with me, are not born again at the time of
creation, nor are they affected by the general dissolution of the world'
(Bha. Gī. XIV, 2).

Some maintain that the last two Sūtras constitute a separate adhikarana
(head of discussion), meant to prove that the text Mu. Up. II, 2, 10
('After him the shining one, everything shines; by the light of him all
this is lighted'), refers to the highest Brahman. This view is, however,
inadmissible, for the reason that with regard to the text quoted no
pūrvapaksha can arise, it having been proved under I, 2, 21 ff., and 1,3,
1, ff., that the whole section of which that text forms part is
concerned with Brahman; and it further having been shown under I, 1, 24
ff., that Brahman is apprehended under the form of light.--The
interpretation moreover does not fit in with the wording of the Sūtras.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of the 'small one.'




23. On account of the term, the one measured.

We read in the Kathavallī 'The Person of the size of a thumb stands in
the middle of the Self, as lord of the past and the future, and
henceforward fears no more'; 'That Person of the size of a thumb is like
a light without smoke,' &c. (Ka. Up. II, 4, 1; 13). And 'The Person not
larger than a thumb, the inner Self, is always settled in the heart of
men' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 17). A doubt here arises whether the being measured
by the extent of a span be the individual soul or the highest Self.--The
Pūrvapakshin maintains the former view; for, he says, another scriptural
text also declares the individual soul to have that measure, 'the ruler
of the vital airs moves through his own works, of the size of a thumb,
brilliant like the sun, endowed with purposes and egoity' (Svet. Up. V,
7; 8). Moreover, the highest Self is not anywhere else, not even for the
purpose of meditation, represented as having the size of a thumb. It
thus being determined that the being of the length of a thumb is the
individual Self, we understand the term 'Lord,' which is applied to it,
as meaning that it is the Lord of the body, the sense-organs, the
objects and the instruments of fruition.--Of this view the Sūtra
disposes, maintaining that the being a thumb long can be none but the
highest Self, just on account of that term. For lordship over all things
past and future cannot possibly belong to the individual Self, which is
under the power of karman.--But how can the highest Self be said to have
the measure of a thumb?--On this point the next Sūtra satisfies us.




24. But with reference to the heart, men being qualified.

In so far as the highest Self abides, for the purpose of devout
meditation, in the heart of the devotee--which heart is of the measure
of a thumb--it may itself be viewed as having the measure of a thumb.
The individual soul also can be said to have the measure of a thumb only
in so far as dwelling within the heart; for scripture directly states
that its real size is that of the point of a goad, i.e. minute. And as
men only are capable of devout meditation, and hence alone have a claim
on scripture, the fact that the hearts of other living creatures also,
such as donkeys, horses, snakes, &c., have the same size, cannot give
rise to any objection.--The discussion of this matter will be completed
later on [FOOTNOTE 326:1].




25. Also beings above them (i.e. men), Bādarāyana thinks, on account of
possibility.

In order to prove that the highest Brahman may be viewed as having the
size of a thumb, it has been declared that the scriptural texts
enjoining meditation on Brahman are the concern of men. This offers an
opportunity for the discussion of the question whether also other
classes of individual souls, such as devas, are qualified for knowledge
of Brahman. The Pūrvapakshin denies this qualification in the case of
gods and other beings, on the ground of absence of capability. For, he
says, bodiless beings, such as gods, are incapable of the accomplishment
of meditation on Brahman, which requires as its auxiliaries the seven
means enumerated above (p. 17)--This must not be objected to on the
ground of the devas, and so on, having bodies; for there is no means of
proof establishing such embodiedness. We have indeed proved above that
the Vedānta-texts may intimate accomplished things, and hence are an
authoritative means for the cognition of Brahman; but we do not meet
with any Vedānta-text, the purport of which is to teach that the devas,
and so on, possess bodies. Nor can this point be established through
mantras and arthavāda texts; for these are merely supplementary to the
injunctions of actions (sacrificial, and so on), and therefore have a
different aim. And the injunctions themselves prove nothing with regard
to the devas, except that the latter are that with a view to which those
actions are performed. In the same way it also cannot be shown that the
gods have any desires or wants (to fulfil or supply which they might
enter on meditation of Brahman). For the two reasons above we therefore
conclude that the devas, and so on, are not qualified for meditation on
Brahman.--This view is contradicted by the Sūtra. Such meditation is
possible in the case of higher beings also Bādarāyana thinks; on account
of the possibility of want and capacity on their part also. Want and
wish exist in their case since they also are liable to suffering,
springing from the assaults, hard to be endured, of the different kinds
of pain, and since they also know that supreme enjoyment is to be found
in the highest Brahman, which is untouched by the shadow even of
imperfection, and is a mass of auspicious qualities in their highest
perfection. 'Capability', on the other hand, depends on the possession
of a body and sense-organs of whatever degree of tenuity; and that the
devas, from Brahma downward, possess a body and sense-organs, is
declared in all the Upanishads, in the chapters treating of creation and
the chapters enjoining meditation. In the Chāndogya, e.g. it is related
how the highest Being having resolved on creation, evolved the aggregate
of non-sentient matter with its different kinds, and then produced the
fourfold multitude of living creatures, each having a material body
corresponding to its karman, and a suitable name of its own. Similarly,
all the other scriptural accounts of creation declare that there are
four classes of creatures--devas, men, animals, and non-moving beings,
such as plants--and the difference of these classes depends on the
individual Selfs being joined to various bodies capacitating them to
experience the results of their works, each in that one of the fourteen
worlds--beginning with the world of Brahmā--which is the suitable place
for retribution. For in themselves, apart from bodies, the individual
Selfs are not distinguished as men, gods, and so on. In the same way the
story of the devas and Asuras approaching Prajāpati with fuel in their
hands, staying with him as pupils for thirty-two years, &c. (Ch. Up.
VIII, 7 ff.), clearly shows that the devas possess bodies and sense-
organs. Analogously, mantras and arthavādas, which are complementary to
injunctions of works, contain unmistakeable references to the corporeal
nature of the gods ('Indra holding in his hand the thunderbolt'; 'Indra
lifted the thunderbolt', &c.); and as the latter is not contradicted by
any other means of proof it must be accepted on the authority stated.
Nor can it be said that those mantras and arthavādas are really meant to
express something else (than those details mentioned above), in so far,
namely, as they aim at proclaiming or glorifying the action with which
they are connected; for those very details subserve the purpose of
glorification, and so on, and without them glorification is not possible.
For we praise or glorify a thing by declaring its qualities; if such
qualities do not exist all glorification lapses. It cannot by any means
be maintained that anything may be glorified by the proclamation of its
qualities, even if such qualities do not really exist. Hence the
arthavādas which glorify a certain action, just thereby intimate the
real existence of the qualities and details of the action. The mantras
again, which are prescribed in connexion with the actions, serve the
purpose of throwing light on the use to be derived from the performance
of the actions, and this they accomplish by making statements as to the
particular qualities, such as embodiedness and the like, which belong to
the devas and other classes of beings. Otherwise Indra, and so on, would
not be remembered at the time of performance; for the idea of a divinity
presents itself to the mind only in connexion with the special
attributes of that divinity. In the case of such qualities as are not
established by other means of proof, the primary statement is made by
the arthavāda or the mantra: the former thereby glorifies the action,
and the latter proclaims it as possessing certain qualities or details;
and both these ends are accomplished by making statements as to the gods,
&c., possessing certain qualities, such as embodiedness and the like.
In the case, again, of certain qualities being already established by
other means of proof, the mantras and arthavādas merely refer to them
(as something already known), and in this way perform their function of
glorification and elucidation. And where, thirdly, there is a
contradiction between the other means of knowledge and what mantras and
arthavādas state (as when, e.g. a text of the latter kind says that 'the
sacrificial post is the sun'), the intention of the text is
metaphorically to denote, by means of those apparently unmeaning terms,
certain other qualities which are not excluded by the other means of
knowledge; and in this way the function of glorification and elucidation
is again accomplished. Now what the injunction of a sacrificial action
demands as its supplement, is a statement as to the power of the
divinity to whom the sacrifice is offered; for the performance which
scripture enjoins on men desirous of certain results, is itself of a
merely transitory nature, and hence requires some agent capable of
bringing about, at some future time, the result desired as, e.g. the
heavenly world. 'Vāyu is the swiftest god; he (the sacrificer)
approaches Vāyu with his own share; the god then leads him to
prosperity' (Taitt. Samh. I, 2, 1); 'What he seeks by means of that
offering, may he obtain that, may he prosper therein, may the gods
favourably grant him that' (Taitt. Br. III, 5, 10, 5); these and similar
arthavādas and mantras intimate that the gods when propitiated by
certain sacrificial works, give certain rewards and possess the power to
do so; and they thus connect themselves with the general context of
scripture as supplying an evidently required item of information.
Moreover, the mere verb 'to sacrifice' (yaj), as denoting worship of the
gods, intimates the presence of a deity which is to be propitiated by
the action called sacrifice, and thus constitutes the main element of
that action. A careful consideration of the whole context thus reveals
that everything which is wanted for the due accomplishment of the action
enjoined is to be learned from the text itself, and that hence we need
not have recourse to such entities as the 'unseen principle' (apūrva),
assumed to be denoted by, or to be imagined in connexion with, the
passages enjoining certain actions. Hence the dharmasāstras, itihāsas,
and purānas also, which are founded on the different brāhmanas, mantras
and arthavādas, clearly teach that Brahma and the other gods, as well as
the Asuras and other superhuman beings, have bodies and sense-organs,
constitutions of different kinds, different abodes, enjoyments, and
functions.--Owing to their having bodies, the gods therefore are also
qualified for meditation on Brahman.

[FOOTNOTE 326:1. The 'pramitādhikarana' is resumed in Sūtra 41.]




26. If it be said that there results a contradiction to work; we deny
this, on account of the observation of the assumption of several
(bodies).

An objection here presents itself. If we admit the gods to have bodies,
a difficulty arises at the sacrifices, as it is impossible that one and
the same corporeal Indra--who is at the same time invited by many
sacrificers 'come, O Indra', 'come, O Lord of the red horses,' &c.--
should be present at all those places. And that the gods, Agni and so on,
really do come to the sacrifices is proved by the following scriptural
text: 'To whose sacrifice do the gods go, and to whose not? He who first
receives the gods, sacrifices to them on the following day' (Taitt. Samh.
I, 6, 7, 1). In refutation of this objection the Suūtra points out that
there is seen, i.e. recorded, the assumption of several bodies at the
same time, on the part of beings endowed with special powers, such as
Saubhari.




27. If it be said (that a contradiction will result) with regard to
words; we say no, since beings originate from them (as appears) from
perception and inference.

Well then let us admit that there is no difficulty as far as sacrifices
are concerned, for the reason stated in the preceding Sūtra. But another
difficulty presents itself with regard to the words of which the Veda
consists. For if Indra and the other gods are corporeal beings, it
follows that they are made up of parts and hence non-permanent. This
implies either that the Vedic words denoting them--not differing therein
from common worldly words such as Devadatta--are totally devoid of
meaning during all those periods which precede the origination of the
beings called Indra and so on, or follow on their destruction; or else
that the Veda itself is non-permanent, non-eternal.--This objection is
not valid, the Sūtra points out, for the reason that those beings, viz.
Indra and so on, again and again originate from the Vedic words. To
explain. Vedic words, such as Indra and so on, do not, like the word
Devadatta and the like, denote, on the basis of convention, one
particular individual only: they rather denote by their own power
particular species of beings, just as the word 'cow' denotes a
particular species of animals. When therefore a special individual of
the class called Indra has perished, the creator, apprehending from the
Vedic word 'Indra' which is present to his mind the class
characteristics of the beings denoted by that word, creates another
Indra possessing those very same characteristics; just as the potter
fashions a new jar, on the basis of the word 'jar' which is stirring in
_his_ mind.--But how is this known?--'Through perception and inference,'
i.e. through Scripture and Smriti. Scripture says, e.g. 'By means of the
Veda Prajāpati evolved names and forms, the being and the non-being';
and 'Saying "bhūh" (earth) he created the earth; saying "bhuvah" he
created the air,' and so on; which passages teach that the creator at
first bethinks himself of the characteristic make of a thing, in
connexion with the word denoting it, and thereupon creates an individual
thing characterised by that make. Smriti makes similar statements;
compare, e. g. 'In the beginning there was sent forth by the creator,
divine speech--beginningless and endless--in the form of the Veda, and
from it there originated all creatures'; and 'He, in the beginning,
separately created from the words of the Veda the names and works and
shapes of all things'; and 'The names and forms of beings, and all the
multiplicity of works He in the beginning created from the Veda.' This
proves that from the corporeality of the gods, and so on, it follows
neither that the words of the Veda are unmeaning nor that the Veda
itself is non-eternal.




28. And for this very reason eternity (of the Veda).

As words such as Indra and Vasishtha, which denote gods and Rishis,
denote (not individuals only, but) classes, and as the creation of those
beings is preceded by their being suggested to the creative mind through
those words; for this reason the eternity of the Veda admits of being
reconciled with what scripture says about the mantras and kāndas
(sections) of the sacred text having 'makers' and about Rishis seeing
the hymns; cp. such passages as 'He chooses the makers of mantras';
'Reverence to the Rishis who are the makers of mantras'; 'That is Agni;
this is a hymn of Visvāmitra.' For by means of these very texts
Prajāpati presents to his own mind the characteristics and powers of the
different Rishis who make the different sections, hymns, and mantras,
thereupon creates them endowed with those characteristics and powers,
and appoints them to remember the very same sections, hymns, &c. The
Rishis being thus gifted by Prajāpati with the requisite powers, undergo
suitable preparatory austerities and finally _see_ the mantras, and so
on, proclaimed by the Vasishthas and other Rishis of former ages of the
world, perfect in all their sounds and accents, without having learned
them from the recitation of a teacher. There is thus no conflict between
the eternity of the Veda and the fact that the Rishis are the _makers_
of its sections, hymns, and so on. A further objection is raised. Let it
be admitted that after each pralaya of the kind called 'contingent'
(naimittika), Prajāpati may proceed to create new Indras, and so on, in
the way of remembering on the basis of the Veda the Indras, and so on,
of preceding periods. In the case, on the other hand, of a pralaya of
the kind called elemental (prākritika), in which the creator, Prajāpati
himself, and words--which are the effects of the elemental ahankāra--
pass away, what possibility is there of Prajāpati undertaking a new
creation on the basis of Vedic words, and how can we speak of the
permanency of a Veda which perishes? He who maintains the eternity of
the Veda and the corporeality of gods, and so on, is thus really driven
to the hypothesis of the course of mundane existence being without a
beginning (i.e. not preceded by a pralaya).--Of this difficulty the next
Sūtra disposes.




29. And on account of the equality of names and forms there is no
contradiction, even in the renovation (of the world); as appears from--
Sruti and Smriti.

On account of the sameness of names and forms, as stated before, there
is no difficulty in the way of the origination of the world, even in the
case of total pralayas. For what actually takes place is as follows.
When the period of a great pralaya draws towards its close, the divine
supreme Person, remembering the constitution of the world previous to
the pralaya, and forming the volition 'May I become manifold' separates
into its constituent elements the whole mass of enjoying souls and
objects of enjoyment which, during the pralaya state, had been merged in
him so as to possess a separate existence (not actual but) potential
only, and then emits the entire world just as it had been before, from
the so-called Mahat down to the Brahman-egg, and Hiranyagarbha
(Prajāpati). Having thereupon manifested the Vedas in exactly the same
order and arrangement they had had before, and having taught them to
Hiranyagarbha, he entrusts to him the new creation of the different
classes of beings, gods, and so on, just as it was before; and at the
same time abides himself within the world so created as its inner Self
and Ruler. This view of the process removes all difficulties. The
superhuman origin and the eternity of the Veda really mean that
intelligent agents having received in their minds an impression due to
previous recitations of the Veda in a fixed order of words, chapters,
and so on, remember and again recite it in that very same order of
succession. This holds good both with regard to us men and to the
highest Lord of all; there however is that difference between the two
cases that the representations of the Veda which the supreme Person
forms in his own mind are spontaneous, not dependent on an impression
previously made.

To the question whence all this is known, the Sūtra replies 'from
Scripture and Smriti.' The scriptural passage is 'He who first creates
Brahmā and delivers the Vedas to him' (Svet. Up. VI, 18). And as to
Smriti we have the following statement in Manu, 'This universe existed
in the shape of darkness, &c.--He desiring to produce beings of many
kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters and
placed his seed in them. That seed became a golden egg equal to the sun
in brilliancy; in that he himself was born as Brahmā, the progenitor of
the whole world' (Manu I, 5; 8-9). To the same effect are the texts of
the Paurānikas, 'From the navel of the sleeping divinity there sprung up
a lotus, and in that lotus there was born Brahma fully knowing all Vedas
and Vedāngas. And then Brahmā was told by him (the highest Divinity),
'Do thou create all beings, O Great-minded one'; and the following
passage, 'From the highest Nārāyana there was born the Four-faced one.'--
And in the section which begins 'I will tell the original creation,' we
read 'Because having created water (nāra) I abide within it, therefore
my name shall be Nārāyana. There I lie asleep in every Kalpa, and as I
am sleeping there springs from my navel a lotus, and in that lotus there
is born the Four-faced one, and I tell him "Do thou, Great-minded one,
create all beings."'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the deities.'




30. On account of the impossibility (of qualification for the
madhuvidyā, &c.) (Jaimini maintains the non-qualification (of gods,
&c.).)

So far it has been proved that also the gods, and so on, are qualified
for the knowledge of Brahman. But a further point here presents itself
for consideration, viz. whether the gods are qualified or not to
undertake those meditations of which they themselves are the objects.
The Sūtra states as a pūrvapaksha view held by Jaimini, that they are
not so qualified, for the reason that there are no other Ādityas, Vasus,
and so on, who could be meditated on by the Ādityas and Vasus themselves;
and that moreover for the Ādityas and Vasus the qualities and position
of those classes of deities cannot be objects of desire, considering
that they possess them already. The so-called Madhuvidyā (Ch. Up. III)
represents as objects of devout meditation certain parts of the sun
which are being enjoyed by the different classes of divine beings, Vasus,
Ādityas, and so on--the sun being there called 'madhu.' i.e. honey or
nectar, on account of his being the abode of a certain nectar to be
brought about by certain sacrificial works to be known from the Rig-veda,
and so on; and as the reward of such meditation the text names the
attainment of the position of the Vasus, Ādityas, and so on.




31. And on account of (meditating on the part of the gods) being in the
Light.

'Him the devas meditate upon as the light of lights, as immortal time'
(Bri. Up. IV, 4, 16). This text declares that the meditation of the gods
has for its object the Light, i.e. the highest Brahman. Now this express
declaration as to the gods being meditating devotees with regard to
meditations on Brahman which are common to men and gods, implies a
denial of the gods being qualified for meditations on other objects. The
conclusion therefore is that the Vasus, and so on, are not qualified for
meditations on the Vasus and other classes of deities.




32. But Bādarāyana (maintains) the existence (of qualification); for
there is (possibility of such).

The Reverend Bādarāyana thinks that the Ādityas, Vasus, and so on, are
also qualified for meditations on divinities. For it is in their case
also possible that their attainment of Brahman should be viewed as
preceded by their attainment of Vasu-hood or Āditya-hood, in so far,
namely, as they meditate on Brahman as abiding within themselves. They
may be Vasus and Ādityas in the present age of the world, but at the
same time be desirous of holding the same position in future ages also.
In the Madhuvidyā we have to distinguish two sections, concerned
respectively with Brahman in its causal and its effected state. The
former section, extending from the beginning up to 'when from thence he
has risen upwards,' enjoins meditation on Brahman in its condition as
effect, i.e. as appearing in the form of creatures such as the Vasus,
and so on; while the latter section enjoins meditation on the causal
Brahman viewed as abiding within the sun as its inner Self. The purport
of the whole vidyā is that he who meditates on Brahman in this its
twofold form will in a future age of the world enjoy Vasu-hood, and will
finally attain Brahman in its causal aspect, i.e. the very highest
Brahman. From the fact that the text, 'And indeed to him who thus knows
the Brahma-upanishad, the sun does not rise and does not set; for him
there is day once and for all,' calls the whole Madhuvidyā a 'Brahma'--
upanishad, and that the reward declared is the attainment of Vasu-hood,
and so on, leading up to the attainment of Brahman, we clearly are
entitled to infer that the meditations which the text enjoins, viz. on
the different parts of the sun viewed as objects of enjoyment for the
Vasus, and so on, really are meant as meditations on Brahman as abiding
in those different forms. Meditation on the Vasus and similar beings is
thus seen to be possible for the Vasus themselves. And as Brahman really
constitutes the only object of meditation, we also see the
appropriateness of the text discussed above, 'On him the gods meditate
as the light of lights.' The Vrittikāra expresses the same opinion, 'For
there is possibility with regard to the Madhu-vidyā, and so on, Brahman
only being the object of meditation everywhere.'--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'honey.'

The Sūtras now enter on a discussion of the question whether the Sūdras
also are qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.

The Pūrvapakshin maintains that they are so qualified; for qualification,
he says, depends on want and capacity, and both these are possible in
the case of Sūdras also. The Sūdra is not indeed qualified for any works
depending on a knowledge of the sacred fires, for from such knowledge he
is debarred; but he possesses qualification for meditation on Brahman,
which after all is nothing but a certain mental energy. The only works
prerequisite for meditation are those works which are incumbent on a man
as a member of a caste or āsrama, and these consist, in the Sūdra's case,
in obedience to the higher castes. And when we read 'therefore the Sūdra
is not qualified for sacrifices,' the purport of this passage is only to
make a confirmatory reference to something already settled by reason,
viz. that the Sūdra is not qualified for the performance of sacrifices
which cannot be accomplished by one not acquainted with the sacred fires
(and not to deny the Sūdra's competence for devout meditation).--But how
can meditation on Brahman be undertaken by a man who has not studied the
Vedas, inclusive of the Vedānta, and hence knows nothing about the
nature of Brahman and the proper modes of meditation?--Those also, we
reply, who do not study Veda and Vedānta may acquire the requisite
knowledge by hearing Itihāsas and Purānas; and there are texts which
allow Sūdras to become acquainted with texts of that kind; cp. e.g. 'one
is to make the four castes to hear texts, the Brāhmana coming first.'
Moreover, those Purānas and Itihāsas make mention of Sūdras, such as
Vidura, who had a knowledge of Brahman. And the Upanishads themselves,
viz. in the so-called Samvarga-vidyā, show that a Sūdra is qualified for
the knowledge of Brahman; for there the teacher Raikva addresses
Jānasruti, who wishes to learn from him, as Sūdra, and thereupon
instructs him in the knowledge of Brahman (Ch. Up. IV, 2, 3). All this
proves that Sūdras also have a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

This conclusion we deny, on the ground of the absence of capability. It
is impossible that the capability of performing meditations on Brahman
should belong to a person not knowing the nature of Brahman and the due
modes of meditation, and not qualified by the knowledge of the requisite
preliminaries of such meditation, viz. recitation of the Veda,
sacrifices, and so on. Mere want or desire does not impart qualification
to a person destitute of the required capability. And this absence of
capability is due, in the Sūdra's case, to absence of legitimate study
of the Veda. The injunctions of sacrificial works naturally connect
themselves with the knowledge and the means of knowledge (i.e. religious
ceremonies and the like) that belong to the three higher castes, for
these castes actually possess the knowledge (required for the
sacrifices), owing to their studying the Veda in agreement with the
injunction which prescribes such study for the higher castes; the same
injunctions do not, on the other hand, connect themselves with the
knowledge and means of knowledge belonging to others (than members of
the three higher castes). And the same naturally holds good with regard
to the injunctions of meditation on Brahman. And as thus only such
knowledge as is acquired by study prompted by the Vedic injunction of
study supplies a means for meditation on Brahman, it follows that the
Sūdra for whom that injunction is not meant is incapable of such
meditation. Itihāsas and Purānas hold the position of being helpful
means towards meditation in so far only as they confirm or support the
Veda, not independently of the Veda. And that Sūdras are allowed to hear
Itihāsas and Purānas is meant only for the end of destroying their sins,
not to prepare them for meditation on Brahman. The case of Vidura and
other Sūdras having been 'founded on Brahman,' explains itself as
follows:--Owing to the effect of former actions, which had not yet
worked themselves out, they were born in a low caste, while at the same
time they possessed wisdom owing to the fact that the knowledge acquired
by them in former births had not yet quite vanished.

(On these general grounds we object to Sūdras being viewed as qualified
for meditation on Brahman.) The Sūtra now refutes that argument, which
the Pūrvapakshin derives from the use of the word 'Sūdra' in the
Samvarga-vidyā.




33. (That) grief of him (arose), this is intimated by his (Jānasruti's)
resorting to him (Raikva) on hearing a disrespectful speech about
himself.

From what the text says about Jānasruti Pautrāyana having been taunted
by a flamingo for his want of knowledge of Brahman, and having thereupon
resorted to Raikva, who possessed the knowledge of Brahman, it appears
that sorrow (suk) had taken possession of him; and it is with a view to
this that Raikva addresses him as Sūdra. For the word Sūdra,
etymologically considered, means one who grieves or sorrows (sokati).
The appellation 'sūdra' therefore refers to his sorrow, not to his being
a member of the fourth caste. This clearly appears from a consideration
of the whole story. Jānasruti Pautrāyana was a very liberal and pious
king. Being much pleased with his virtuous life, and wishing to rouse in
him the desire of knowing Brahman, two noble-minded beings, assuming the
shape of flamingoes, flew past him at night time, when one of them
addressed the other, 'O Bhallāksha. the light of Jānasruti has spread
like the sky; do not go near that it may not burn thee.' To this praise
of Jānasruti the other flamingo replied, 'How can you speak of him,
being what he is, as if he were Raikva "sayuktvān"?' i.e. 'how can you
speak of Jānasruti, being what he is, as if he were Raikva, who knows
Brahman and is endowed with the most eminent qualities? Raikva, who
knows Brahman, alone in this world is truly eminent. Janasruti may be
very pious, but as he does not know Brahman what quality of his could
produce splendour capable of burning me like the splendour of Raikva?'
The former flamingo thereupon asks who that Raikva is, and its companion
replies, 'He in whose work and knowledge there are comprised all the
works done by good men and all the knowledge belonging to intelligent
creatures, that is Raikva.' Jānasruti, having heard this speech of the
flamingo--which implied a reproach to himself as being destitute of the
knowledge of Brahman, and a glorification of Raikva as possessing that
knowledge--at once sends his door-keeper to look for Raikva; and when
the door-keeper finds him and brings word, the king himself repairs to
him with six hundred cows, a golden necklace, and a carriage yoked with
mules, and asks him to teach him the deity on which he meditates, i.e.
the highest deity. Raikva, who through the might of his Yoga-knowledge
is acquainted with everything that passes in the three worlds, at once
perceives that Jānasruti is inwardly grieved at the slighting speech of
the flamingo, which had been provoked by the king's want of knowledge of
Brahman, and is now making an effort due to the wish of knowing Brahman;
and thus recognises that the king is fit for the reception of that
knowledge. Reflecting thereupon that a knowledge of Brahman may be
firmly established in this pupil even without long attendance on the
teacher if only he will be liberal to the teacher to the utmost of his
capability, he addresses him: 'Do thou take away (apāhara) (these
things), O Sūdra; keep (the chariot) with the cows for thyself.' What he
means to say is, 'By so much only in the way of gifts bestowed on me,
the knowledge of Brahman cannot be established in thee, who, through the
desire for such knowledge, art plunged in grief'--the address 'O Sūdra'
intimating that Raikva knows Jānasruti to be plunged in grief, and on
that account fit to receive instruction about Brahman. Jānasruti
thereupon approaches Raikva for a second time, bringing as much wealth
as he possibly can, and moreover his own daughter. Raikva again
intimates his view of the pupil's fitness for receiving instruction by
addressing him a second time as 'Sūdra,' and says, 'You have brought
these, O Sūdra; by this mouth only you made me speak,' i.e. 'You now
have brought presents to the utmost of your capability; by this means
only you will induce me, without lengthy service on your part, to utter
speech containing that instruction about Brahman which you desire.'--
Having said this he begins to instruct him.--We thus see that the
appellation 'sūdra' is meant to intimate the grief of Jānasruti--which
grief in its turn indicates the king's fitness for receiving instruction;
and is not meant to declare that Jānasruti belongs to the lowest caste.




34. And on account of (Jānasruti ) kshattriya-hood being understood.

The first section of the vidyā tells us that Jānasruti bestowed much
wealth and food; later on he is represented as sending his door-keeper
on an errand; and in the end, as bestowing on Raikva many villages--
which shows him to be a territorial lord. All these circumstances
suggest Jānasruti's being a Kshattriya, and hence not a member of the
lowest caste.--The above Sūtra having declared that the kshattriya-hood
of Jānasruti is indicated in the introductory legend, the next Sūtra
shows that the same circumstance is indicated in the concluding legend.




35. On account of the inferential sign further on, together with
Kaitraratha.

The kshattriya-hood of Jānasruti is further to be accepted on account of
the Kshattriya Abhipratārin Kaitraratha, who is mentioned further on in
this very same Samvargavidyā which Raikva imparts to Jānasruti.--But why?--
As follows. The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakārin begged of Saunaka
Kāpeya and Abhipratārin Kākshaseni while being waited on at their meal,'
and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakārin, meditate on that being,' shows
Kāpeya, Abhipratārin, and the Brahmakārin to be connected with the
Samvarga-vidyā. Now Abhipratārin is a Kshattriya, the other two are
Brāhmanas. This shows that there are connected with the vidyā, Brāhmanas,
and from among non-Brāhmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sūdra. It
therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the
Brāhmana Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidyā, viz.
Jānasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sūdra.--But how do we know
that Abhipratārin is a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya? Neither of these
circumstances is stated in the legend in the Samvarga-vidyā! To this
question the Sūtra replies, 'on account of the inferential mark.' From
the inferential mark that Saunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārin Kākshaseni are
said to have been sitting together at a meal we understand that there is
some connexion between Abhipratārin and the Kāpeyas. Now another
scriptural passage runs as follows: 'The Kāpeyas made Kaitraratha
perform that sacrifice' (Tānd Brā. XX, 12, 5), and this shows that one
connected with the Kāpeyas was a Kaitraratha; and a further text shows
that a Kaitraratha is a Kshattriya. 'from him there was descended a
Kaitraratha who was a prince.' All this favours the inference that
Abhipratārin was a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya.

So far the Sūtras have shown that there is no inferential mark to prove
what is contradicted by reasoning, viz. the qualification of the Sūdras.
The next Sūtra declares that the non-qualification of the Sūdra proved
by reasoning is confirmed by Scripture and Smriti.




36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications, and on
account of the declaration of their absence.

In sections the purport of which is to give instruction about Brahman
the ceremony of initiation is referred to, 'I will initiate you; he
initiated him' (Ch. Up. IV, 4). And at the same time the absence of such
ceremonies in the case of Sūdras is stated: 'In the Sūdra there is not
any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony' (Manu X, 126); and 'The
fourth caste is once born, and not fit for any ceremony' (Manu X, 4).




37. And on account of the procedure, on the ascertainment of the non-
being of that.

That a Sūdra is not qualified for knowledge of Brahman appears from that
fact also that as soon as Gautama has convinced himself that Jābāla, who
wishes to become his pupil, is not a Sūdra, he proceeds to teach him the
knowledge of Brahman.




38. And on account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and
performance of (Vedic) matter.

The Sūdra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to
perform the things enjoined in it. 'For a Sūdra is like a cemetery,
therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sūdra;'
'Therefore the Sūdra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who
does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and
perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies
the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.




39. And on account of Smriti.

Smriti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. 'The ears
of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac; if
he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit; if he preserves it his body
is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.
'--It is thus a settled matter that the Sūdras are not qualified for
meditations on Brahman.

We must here point out that the non-qualification of Sūdras for the
cognition of Brahman can in no way be asserted by those who hold that a
Brahman consisting of pure non-differenced intelligence constitutes the
sole reality; that everything else is false; that all bondage is unreal;
that such bondage may be put an end to by the mere cognition of the true
nature of Reality--such cognition resulting from the hearing of certain
texts; and that the cessation of bondage thus effected constitutes final
Release. For knowledge of the true nature of Reality, in the sense
indicated, and the release resulting from it, may be secured by any one
who learns from another person that Brahman alone is real and that
everything else is falsely superimposed on Brahman. That the cognition
of such truth can be arrived at only on the basis of certain Vedic texts,
such as 'Thou art that,' is a restriction which does not admit of proof;
for knowledge of the truth does not depend on man's choice, and at once
springs up in the mind even of an unwilling man as soon as the
conditions for such origination are present. Nor can it be proved in any
way that bondage can be put an end to only through such knowledge of the
truth as springs from Vedic texts; for error comes to an end through the
knowledge of the true nature of things, whatever agency may give rise to
such knowledge. True knowledge, of the kind described, will spring up in
the mind of a man as soon as he hears the non-scriptural declaration,
'Brahman, consisting of non-differenced intelligence, is the sole
Reality; everything else is false,' and this will suffice to free him
from error. When a competent and trustworthy person asserts that what
was mistaken for silver is merely a sparkling shell, the error of a
Sūdra no less than of a Brāhmana comes to an end; in the same way a
Sūdra also will free himself from the great cosmic error as soon as the
knowledge of the true nature of things has arisen in his mind through a
statement resting on the traditional lore of men knowing the Veda. Nor
must you object to this on the ground that men knowing the Veda do not
instruct Sūdras, and so on, because the text, 'he is not to teach him
sacred things,' forbids them to do so; for men who have once learned--
from texts such as 'Thou art that'--that Brahman is their Self, and thus
are standing on the very top of the Veda as it were, move no longer in
the sphere of those to whom injunctions and prohibitions apply, and the
prohibition quoted does not therefore touch them. Knowledge of Brahman
may thus spring up in the mind of Sūdras and the like, owing to
instruction received from one of those men who have passed beyond all
prohibition. Nor must it be said that the instance of the shell and the
silver is not analogous, in so far, namely, as the error with regard to
silver in the shell comes to an end as soon as the true state of things
is declared; while the great cosmic error that clouds the Sūdra's mind
does not come to an end as soon as, from the teaching of another man, he
learns the truth about Reality. For the case of the Sūdra does not
herein differ from that of the Brāhmana; the latter also does not at
once free himself from the cosmic error. Nor again will it avail to
plead that the sacred texts originate the demanded final cognition in
the mind of the Brāhmana as soon as meditation has dispelled the
obstructive imagination of plurality; for in the same way, i.e. helped
by meditation, the non-Vedic instruction given by another person
produces the required cognition in the mind of the Sūdra. For meditation
means nothing but a steady consideration of the sense which sentences
declaratory of the unity of Brahman and the Self may convey, and the
effect of such meditation is to destroy all impressions opposed to such
unity; you yourself thus admit that the injunction of meditation aims at
something visible (i.e. an effect that can be definitely assigned,
whence it follows that the Sūdra also is qualified for it, while he
would not be qualified for an activity having an 'adrishta,' i.e.
supersensuous, transcendental effect). The recital of the text of the
Veda also and the like (are not indispensable means for bringing about
cognition of Brahman, but) merely subserve the origination of the _desire_
of knowledge. The desire of knowledge may arise in a Sūdra also (viz. in
some other way), and thereupon real knowledge may result from non-Vedic
instruction, obstructive imaginations having previously been destroyed
by meditation. And thus in his case also non-real bondage will come to
an end.--The same conclusion may also be arrived at by a different road.
The mere ordinary instruments of knowledge, viz. perception and
inference assisted by reasoning, may suggest to the Sūdra the theory
that there is an inward Reality constituted by non-differenced self-
luminous intelligence, that this inward principle witnesses Nescience,
and that owing to Nescience the entire apparent world, with its manifold
distinctions of knowing subjects and objects of knowledge, is
superimposed upon the inner Reality. He may thereupon, by uninterrupted
meditation on this inner Reality, free himself from all imaginations
opposed to it, arrive at the intuitive knowledge of the inner principle,
and thus obtain final release. And this way being open to release, there
is really no use to be discerned in the Vedānta-texts, suggesting as
they clearly do the entirely false view that the real being (is not
absolutely homogeneous intelligence, but) possesses infinite
transcendent attributes, being endowed with manifold powers, connected
with manifold creations, and so on. In this way the qualification of
Sūdras for the knowledge of Brahman is perfectly clear. And as the
knowledge of Brahman may be reached in this way not only by Sūdras but
also by Brāhmanas and members of the other higher castes, the poor
Upanishad is practically defunct.--To this the following objection will
possibly be raised. Man being implicated in and confused by the
beginningless course of mundane existence, requires to receive from
somewhere a suggestion as to this empirical world being a mere error and
the Reality being something quite different, and thus only there arises
in him a desire to enter on an enquiry, proceeding by means of
perception, and so on. Now that which gives the required suggestion is
the Veda, and hence we cannot do without it.--But this objection is not
valid. For in the minds of those who are awed by all the dangers and
troubles of existence, the desire to enter on a philosophical
investigation of Reality, proceeding by means of Perception and
Inference, springs up quite apart from the Veda, owing to the
observation that there are various sects of philosophers. Sānkhyas, and
so on, who make it their business to carry on such investigations. And
when such desire is once roused, Perception and Inference alone (in the
way allowed by the Sānkaras themselves) lead on to the theory that the
only Reality is intelligence eternal, pure, self-luminous, non-dual, non-
changing, and that everything else is fictitiously superimposed thereon.
That this self-luminous Reality possesses no other attribute to be
learned from scripture is admitted; for according to your opinion also
scripture sublates everything that is not Brahman and merely
superimposed on it. Nor should it be said that we must have recourse to
the Upanishads for the purpose of establishing that the Real found in
the way of perception and inference is at the same time of the nature of
bliss; for the merely and absolutely Intelligent is seen of itself to be
of that nature, since it is different from everything that is not of
that nature.--There are, on the other hand, those who hold that the
knowledge which the Vedānta-texts enjoin as the means of Release is of
the nature of devout meditation; that such meditation has the effect of
winning the love of the supreme Spirit and is to be learned from
scripture only; that the injunctions of meditation refer to such
knowledge only as springs from the legitimate study of the Veda on the
part of a man duly purified by initiation and other ceremonies, and is
assisted by the seven means (see above, p. 17); and that the supreme
Person pleased by such meditation bestows on the devotee knowledge of
his own true nature, dissolves thereby the Nescience springing from
works, and thus releases him from bondage. And on this view the proof of
the non-qualification of the Sūdra, as given in the preceding Sūtras,
holds good.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the exclusion of the
Sūdras.'

Having thus completed the investigation of qualification which had
suggested itself in connexion with the matter in hand, the Sūtras return
to the being measured by a thumb, and state another reason for its being
explained as Brahman--as already understood on the basis of its being
declared the ruler of what is and what will be.




40. On account of the trembling.

In the part of the Katha-Upanishad which intervenes between the passage
'The Person of the size of a thumb stands in the middle of the Self (II,
4, 12), and the passage 'The Person of the size of a thumb, the inner
Self' (II, 6, 17), we meet with the text 'whatever there is, the whole
world, when gone forth, trembles in its breath. A great terror, a raised
thunderbolt; those who knew it became immortal. From fear of it fire
burns, from fear the sun shines, from fear Indra and Vāyu, and Death as
the fifth run away' (II, 6, 2; 3). This text declares that the whole
world and Agni, Sūrya, and so on, abiding within that Person of the size
of a thumb, who is here designated by the term 'breath,' and going forth
from him, tremble from their great fear of him. 'What will happen to us
if we transgress his commandments?'--thinking thus the whole world
trembles on account of great fear, as if it were a raised thunderbolt.
In this explanation we take the clause 'A great fear, a raised
thunderbolt,' in the sense of '(the world trembles) from great fear,' &c.,
as it is clearly connected in meaning with the following clause: 'from
fear the fire burns,' &c.--Now what is described here is the nature of
the highest Brahman; for that such power belongs to Brahman only we know
from other texts, viz.: 'By the command of that Imperishable, O Gārgī,
sun and moon stand apart' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 9); and 'From fear of it the
wind blows, from fear the sun rises; from fear of it Agni and Indra, yea
Death runs as the fifth' (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1).--The next Sūtra supplies
a further reason.




41. On account of light being seen (declared in the text).

Between the two texts referring to the Person of the size of a thumb,
there is a text declaring that to that Person there belongs light that
obscures all other light, and is the cause and assistance of all other
light; and such light is characteristic of Brahman only. 'The sun does
not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and
much less this fire. After him, the shining one, everything shines; by
his light all this is lighted' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 15)--This very same sloka
is read in the Ātharvana (i.e. Mundaka) with reference to Brahman.
Everywhere, in fact, the texts attribute supreme luminousness to Brahman
only. Compare: 'Having approached the highest light he manifests himself
in his own shape' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3); 'Him the gods meditate on as
the light of lights, as immortal time' (Bri. Up. IV, 4,16); 'Now that
light which shines above this heaven' (Ch. Up. III, 13, 7).--It is thus
a settled conclusion that the Person measured by a thumb is the highest
Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'him who is measured' (by a
thumb).




42. The ether, on account of the designation of something different, and
so on.

We read in the Chāndogya. 'The ether is the evolver of forms and names.
That within which these forms and names are (or "that which is within--
or without--these forms and names") is Brahman, the Immortal, the Self'
(VIII, 14). A doubt here arises whether the being here called ether be
the released individual soul, or the highest Self.--The Pūrvapakshin
adopts the former view. For, he says, the released soul is introduced as
subject-matter in an immediately preceding clause,'Shaking off all as a
horse shakes his hair, and as the moon frees himself from the mouth of
Rāhu; having shaken off the body I obtain, satisfied, the uncreated
world of Brahman' Moreover, the clause 'That which is without forms and
names' clearly designates the released soul freed from name and form.
And 'the evolver of names and forms' is again that same soul
characterised with a view to its previous condition; for the individual
soul in its non-released state supported the shapes of gods, and so on,
and their names. With a view, finally, to its present state in which it
is free from name and form, the last clause declares 'that is Brahman,
the Immortal'. The term 'ether' may very well be applied to the released
soul which is characterised by the possession of non-limited splendour.--
But, as the text under discussion is supplementary to the section
dealing with the small ether within the heart (VIII, 1, 1 ff.), we
understand that that small ether is referred to here also; and it has
been proved above that that small ether is Brahman!--Not so, we reply.
The text under discussion is separated from the section treating of the
small ether within the heart, by the teaching of Prajāpati. and that
teaching is concerned with the characteristics of the individual soul in
its different conditions up to Release; and moreover the earlier part of
the section under discussion speaks of the being which shakes off evil,
and this undoubtedly is the released individual soul introduced in the
teaching of Prajāpati. All this shows that the ether in our passage
denotes the released individual soul.

This view is set aside by the Sūtra. The ether in our passage is the
highest Brahman, because the clause 'Ether is the evolver of forms and
names' designates something other than the individual soul. The ether
which evolves names and forms cannot be the individual soul either in
the state of bondage or that of release. In the state of bondage the
soul is under the influence of karman, itself participates in name and
form, and hence cannot bring about names and forms. And in its released
state it is expressly said not to take part in the world-business (Ve.
Sū. IV, 4, 17), and therefore is all the less qualified to evolve names
and forms. The Lord, on the other hand, who is the ruling principle in
the construction of the Universe is expressly declared by scripture to
be the evolver of names and forms; cp. 'Entering into them with this
living Self, let me evolve names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'Who is
all-knowing, whose brooding consists of knowledge, from him is born this
Brahman, name, form, and matter' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9), &c. Hence the ether
which brings about names and forms is something different from the soul
for which name and form are brought about; it is in fact the highest
Brahman. This the next clause of the text confirms, 'That which is
within those forms and names'; the purport of which is: because that
ether is within names and forms, not being touched by them but being
something apart, therefore it is the evolver of them; this also
following from his being free from evil and endowed with the power of
realising his purposes. The 'and so on' in the Sūtra refers to the
Brahma-hood, Self-hood, and immortality mentioned in the text ('That is
the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self'). For Brahma-hood, i.e. greatness,
and so on, in their unconditioned sense, belong to the highest Self only.
It is thus clear that the ether is the highest Brahman.--Nor is the
Pūrvapakshin right in maintaining that a clause immediately preceding
('shaking off all evil') introduces the individual soul as the general
topic of the section. For what the part of the text immediately
preceding the passage under discussion does introduce as general topic,
is the highest Brahman, as shown by the clause 'I obtain the Brahma-
world.' Brahman is, it is true, represented there as the object to be
obtained by the released soul; but as the released soul cannot be the
evolver of names and forms, &c., we must conclude that it is Brahman
(and not the released soul), which constitutes the topic of the whole
section. Moreover (to take a wider view of the context of our passage)
the term 'ether' prompts us to recognise here the small ether (mentioned
in the first section of the eighth book) as the general topic of the
book; and as the teaching of Prajāpati is meant to set forth (not the
individual soul by itself but) the nature of the soul of the meditating
devotee, it is proper to conclude that the text under discussion is
meant finally to represent, as the object to be obtained, the small
ether previously inculcated as object of meditation. In conclusion we
remark that the term 'ether' is nowhere seen to denote the individual
Self.--The ether that evolves names and forms, therefore, is the highest
Brahman.

But, an objection is raised, there is no other Self different from the
individual Self; for scripture teaches the unity of all Selfs and denies
duality. Terms such as 'the highest Self,' 'the highest Brahman,' 'the
highest Lord,' are merely designations of the individual soul in the
state of Release. The Brahma-world to be attained, therefore, is nothing
different from the attaining individual soul; and hence the ether also
that evolves names and forms can be that soul only.--To this objection
the next Sūtra replies.




43. On account of difference in deep sleep and departing.

We have to supply 'on account of designation' from the preceding Sūtra.
Because the text designates the highest Self as something different from
the individual Self in the state of deep sleep as well as at the time of
departure, the highest Self is thus different. For the Vājasaneyaka,
after having introduced the individual Self in the passage 'Who is that
Self?--He who consisting of knowledge is among the prānas,' &c. (_Bri_.
Up. IV, 3, 7), describes how, in the state of deep sleep, being not
conscious of anything it is held embraced by the all-knowing highest
Self, embraced by the intelligent Self it knows nothing that is without,
nothing that is within' (IV, 3, 21). So also with reference to the time
of departure, i.e. dying 'Mounted by the intelligent Self it moves along
groaning' (IV, 3, 35). Now it is impossible that the unconscious
individual Self, either lying in deep sleep or departing from the body,
should at the same time be embraced or mounted by itself, being all-
knowing. Nor can the embracing and mounting Self be some other
individual Self; for no such Self can be all-knowing.--The next Sūtra
supplies a further reason.




44. And on account of such words as Lord.

That embracing highest Self is further on designated by terms such as
Lord, and so on. 'He is the Lord of all, the master of all, the ruler of
all. He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works.
He is the lord of all, the king of beings, the protector of beings. He
is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded.
Brāhmanas seek to know him by the study of the Veda. He who knows him
becomes a Muni. Wishing for that world only, mendicants leave their
homes' (IV, 4, 22). 'This indeed is the great unborn Self, the strong,
the giver of wealth,--undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is
Brahman' (IV, 4, 24; 25). Now all the qualities here declared, viz.
being the lord of all, and so on, cannot possibly belong to the
individual Self even in the state of Release; and we thus again arrive
at the conclusion that the ether evolving forms and names is something
different from the released individual soul. The declarations of general
Unity which we meet with in the texts rest thereon, that all sentient
and non-sentient beings are effects of Brahman, and hence have Brahman
for their inner Self. That this is the meaning of texts such as 'All
this is Brahman,' &c., we have explained before. And the texts denying
plurality are to be understood in the same way.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the designation of something different, and so on.'




FOURTH PĀDA.

1. If it be said that some (mention) that which rests on Inference; we
deny this because (the form) refers to what is contained in the simile
of the body; and (this the text) shows.

So far the Sūtras have given instruction about a Brahman, the enquiry
into which serves as a means to obtain what is the highest good of man,
viz. final release; which is the cause of the origination, and so on, of
the world; which differs in nature from all non-sentient things such as
the Pradhāna, and from all intelligent beings whether in the state of
bondage or of release; which is free from all shadow of imperfection;
which is all knowing, all powerful, has the power of realising all its
purposes, comprises within itself all blessed qualities, is the inner
Self of all, and possesses unbounded power and might. But here a new
special objection presents itself. In order to establish the theory
maintained by Kapila, viz. of there being a Pradhāna and individual
souls which do _not_ have their Self in Brahman, it is pointed out by
some that in certain branches of the Veda there are met with certain
passages which appear to adumbrate the doctrine of the Pradhāna being
the universal cause. The Sūtras now apply themselves to the refutation
of this view, in order thereby to confirm the theory of Brahman being
the only cause of all.

We read in the Katha-Upanishad, 'Beyond the senses there are the objects,
beyond the objects there is the mind, beyond the mind there is the
intellect, the great Self is beyond the intellect. Beyond the Great
there is the Unevolved, beyond the Unevolved there is the Person. Beyond
the Person there is nothing--this is the goal, the highest road' (Ka. Up.
I, 3, 11). The question here arises whether by the 'Unevolved' be or be
not meant the Pradhāna, as established by Kapila's theory, of which
Brahman is not the Self.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former
alternative. For, he says, in the clause 'beyond the Great is the
Unevolved, beyond the Unevolved is the Person,' we recognise the
arrangement of entities as established by the Sānkhya-system, and hence
must take the 'Unevolved' to be the Pradhāna. This is further confirmed
by the additional clause 'beyond the Person there is nothing,' which (in
agreement with Sānkhya principles) denies that there is any being beyond
the soul, which itself is the twenty-fifth and last of the principles
recognised by the Sānkhyas. This primā facie view is expressed in the
former part of the Sūtra, 'If it be said that in the sākhās of some that
which rests on Inference, i.e. the Pradhāna, is stated as the universal
cause.'

The latter part of the Sūtra refutes this view. The word 'Unevolved'
does not denote a Pradhāna independent of Brahman; it rather denotes the
body represented as a chariot in the simile of the body, i.e. in the
passage instituting a comparison between the Self, body, intellect, and
so on, on the one side, and the charioteer, chariot, &c. on the other
side.--The details are as follows. The text at first--in the section
beginning 'Know the Self to be the person driving,' &c., and ending 'he
reaches the end of the journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu'
(I, 3, 3-9)--compares the devotee desirous of reaching the goal of his
journey through the samsāra, i.e. the abode of Vishnu, to a man driving
in a chariot; and his body, senses, and so on, to the chariot and parts
of the chariot; the meaning of the whole comparison being that he only
reaches the goal who has the chariot, &c. in his control. It thereupon
proceeds to declare which of the different beings enumerated and
compared to a chariot, and so on, occupy a superior position to the
others in so far, namely, as they are that which requires to be
controlled--'higher than the senses are the objects,' and so on. Higher
than the senses compared to the horses--are the objects--compared to
roads,--because even a man who generally controls his senses finds it
difficult to master them when they are in contact with their objects;
higher than the objects is the mind-compared to the reins--because when
the mind inclines towards the objects even the non-proximity of the
latter does not make much difference; higher than the mind (manas) is
the intellect (buddhi)--compared to the charioteer--because in the
absence of decision (which is the characteristic quality of buddhi) the
mind also has little power; higher than the intellect again is the
(individual) Self, for that Self is the agent whom the intellect serves.
And as all this is subject to the wishes of the Self, the text
characterises it as the 'great Self.' Superior to that Self again is the
body, compared to the chariot, for all activity whereby the individual
Self strives to bring about what is of advantage to itself depends on
the body. And higher finally than the body is the highest Person, the
inner Ruler and Self of all, the term and goal of the journey of the
individual soul; for the activities of all the beings enumerated depend
on the wishes of that highest Self. As the universal inner Ruler that
Self brings about the meditation of the Devotee also; for the Sūtra (II,
3, 41) expressly declares that the activity of the individual soul
depends on the Supreme Person. Being the means for bringing about the
meditation and the goal of meditation, that same Self is the highest
object to be attained; hence the text says 'Higher than the Person there
is nothing--that is the goal, the highest road.' Analogously scripture,
in the antaryāmin-Brāhmana, at first declares that the highest Self
within witnesses and rules everything, and thereupon negatives the
existence of any further ruling principle 'There is no other seer but he,'
&c. Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gītā, 'The abode, the agent, the
various senses, the different and manifold functions, and fifth the
Divinity (i.e. the highest Person)' (XVIII, 14); and 'I dwell within the
heart of all; memory and perception, as well as their loss, come from
me' (XV, 15). And if, as in the explanation of the text under discussion,
we speak of that highest Self being 'controlled,' we must understand
thereby the soul's taking refuge with it; compare the passage Bha. Gī.
XVIII, 61-62, 'The Lord dwells in the heart of all creatures, whirling
them round as if mounted on a machine; to Him go for refuge.'

Now all the beings, senses, and so on, which had been mentioned in the
simile, are recognised in the passage 'higher than the senses are the
objects,' &c., being designated there by their proper names; but there
is no mention made of the body which previously had been compared to the
chariot; we therefore conclude that it is the body which is denoted by
the term 'the Unevolved.' Hence there is no reason to see here a
reference to the Pradhāna as established in the theory of Kapila. Nor do
we recognise, in the text under discussion, the general system of Kapila.
The text declares the objects, i.e. sounds and so on, to be superior to
the senses; but in Kapila's system the objects are not viewed as the
causes of the senses. For the same reason the statement that the manas
is higher than the objects does not agree with Kapila's doctrine. Nor is
this the case with regard to the clause 'higher than the buddhi is the
great one, the Self; for with Kapila the 'great one' (mahat) is the
buddhi, and it would not do to say 'higher than the great one is the
great one.' And finally the 'great one,' according to Kapila, cannot be
called the 'Self.' The text under discussion thus refers only to those
entities which had previously appeared in the simile. The text itself
further on proves this, when saying 'That Self is hidden in all beings
and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their
sharp and subtle intellect. A wise man should keep down speech in the
mind, he should keep that within knowledge (which is) within the Self;
he should keep knowledge within the great Self, and that he should keep
within the quiet Self.' For this passage, after having stated that the
highest Self is difficult to see with the inner and outer organs of
knowledge, describes the mode in which the sense-organs, and so on, are
to be held in control. The wise man should restrain the sense-organs and
the organs of activity within the mind; he should restrain that (i.e.
the mind) within knowledge, i.e. within the intellect (buddhi), which
abides within the Self; he should further restrain the intellect within
the great Self, i.e. the active individual Self; and that Self finally
he should restrain within the quiet Self, i.e. the highest Brahman,
which is the inner ruler of all; i.e. he should reach, with his
individual Self so qualified, the place of Vishnu, i.e. Brahman.--But
how can the term 'the Unevolved' denote the evolved body?--To this
question the next Sūtra furnishes a reply.




2. But the subtle (body), on account of its capability.

The elements in their fine state are what is called the 'Unevolved,' and
this entering into a particular condition becomes the body. It is the
'Unevolved' in the particular condition of the body, which in the text
under discussion is called the 'Unevolved.' 'On account of its
capability,' i.e. because Unevolved non-sentient matter, when assuming
certain states and forms, is capable of entering on activities promoting
the interest of man. But, an objection is raised, if the 'Unevolved' is
taken to be matter in its subtle state, what objection is there to our
accepting for the explanation of our text that which is established in
the Sānkhya-system? for there also the 'Unevolved' means nothing else
but matter in its subtle state.




To this the next Sūtra replies--

3. (Matter in its subtle state) subserves an end, on account of its
dependence on him (viz. the Supreme Person).

Matter in its subtle state subserves ends, in so far only as it is
dependent on the Supreme Person who is the cause of all. We by no means
wish to deny unevolved matter and all its effects in themselves, but in
so far only as they are maintained not to have their Self in the Supreme
Person. For the fact is that they constitute his body and He thus
constitutes their Self; and it is only through this their relation to
him that the Pradhāna, and so on, are capable of accomplishing their
several ends. Otherwise the different essential natures of them all
could never exist,--nor persist, nor act. It is just on the ground of
this dependence on the Lord not being acknowledged by the Sānkhyas that
their system is disproved by us. In Scripture and Smriti alike, wherever
the origination and destruction of the world are described, or the
greatness of the Supreme Person is glorified, the Pradhāna and all its
effects, no less than the individual souls, are declared to have their
Self in that Supreme Person. Compare, e.g. the text which first says
that the earth is merged in water, and further on 'the elements are
merged in the Mahat, the Mahat in the Unevolved, the Unevolved in the
Imperishable, the Imperishable in Darkness; Darkness becomes one with
the highest divinity.' And 'He of whom the earth is the body,' &c. up to
'he of whom the Unevolved is the body; of whom the Imperishable is the
body; of whom death is the body; he the inner Self of all beings, free
from all evil, the divine one, the one God Nārāyana.' And Earth, water,
fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, egoity--thus eightfold is my nature
divided. Lower is this nature; other than this and higher know that
nature of mine which has become the individual soul by which this world
is supported. Remember that all beings spring from this; I am the origin
and the dissolution of the whole Universe. Higher than I there is none
else; all this is strung on me as pearls on a thread' (Bha. Gī VII, 4-7).
And 'the Evolved is Vishnu, and the Unevolved, he is the Person and time.--
The nature (prakriti) declared by me, having the double form of the
Evolved and the Unevolved, and the soul-both these are merged in the
highest Self. That Self is the support of all, the Supreme Person who
under the name of Vishnu is glorified in the Vedas and the Vedānta books.'




4. And on account of there being no statement of its being an object of
knowledge.

If the text meant the Non-evolved as understood by the Sānkhyas it would
refer to it as something to be known; for the Sānkhyas, who hold the
theory of Release resulting from the discriminative knowledge of the
Evolved, the Non-evolved, and the soul, admit that all these are objects
of knowledge. Now our text does not refer to the Un-evolved as an object
of knowledge, and it cannot therefore be the Pradhāna assumed by the
Sānkhyas.




5. Should it be said that (the text) declares (it); we say, not so; for
the intelligent Self (is meant), on account of subject-matter.

'He who has meditated on that which is without sound, without touch,
without form, without decay, without taste, eternal, without smell,
without beginning, without end, beyond the Great, unchangeable; is freed
from the jaws of death' (Ka. Up. II, 3,15), this scriptural text,
closely following on the text under discussion, represents the
'Unevolved' as the object of knowledge!--Not so, we reply. What that
sloka represents as the object of meditation is (not the Unevolved but)
the intelligent Self, i.e. the Supreme Person. For it is the latter who
forms the general subject-matter, as we infer from two preceding
passages, viz. 'He who has knowledge for his charioteer, and who holds
the reins of the mind, he reaches the end of his journey, the highest
place of Vishnu'; and 'That Self is hidden in all beings and does not
shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and
subtle intellect.' For this reason, also, the clause 'Higher than the
person there is nothing' cannot be taken as meant to deny the existence
of an entity beyond the 'purusha' in the Sānkhya sense. That the highest
Self possesses the qualities of being without sound, &c., we moreover
know from other scriptural texts, such as Mu. Up. I, 1, 6 'That which is
not to be seen, not to be grasped,' &c. And the qualification 'beyond
the Great, unchangeable' is meant to declare that the highest Self is
beyond the individual Self which had been called 'the Great' in a
previous passage 'beyond the intellect is the Great Self.'




6. And of three only there is this mention and question.

In the Upanishad under discussion there is mention made of three things
only as objects of knowledge--the three standing to one another in the
relation of means, end to be realised by those means, and persons
realising,--and questions are asked as to those three only. There is no
mention of, nor question referring to, the Unevolved.--Nakiketas
desirous of Release having been allowed by Death to choose three boons,
chooses for his first boon that his father should be well disposed
towards him--without which he could not hope for spiritual welfare. For
his second boon he chooses the knowledge of the Nakiketa-fire, which is
a means towards final Release. 'Thou knowest, O Death, the fire-
sacrifice which leads to heaven; tell it to me, full of faith. Those who
live in the heaven-world reach Immortality--this I ask as my second boon.'
The term 'heaven-world' here denotes the highest aim of man, i.e.
Release, as appears from the declaration that those who live there enjoy
freedom from old age and death; from the fact that further on (I, 1, 26)
works leading to perishable results are disparaged; and from what Yama
says in reply to the second demand 'He who thrice performs this Nākiketa-
rite overcomes birth and death.' As his third boon he, in the form of a
question referring to final release, actually enquires about three
things, viz. 'the nature of the end to be reached, i.e. Release; the
nature of him who wishes to reach that end; and the nature of the means
to reach it, i.e. of meditation assisted by certain works. Yama, having
tested Nakiketas' fitness to receive the desired instruction, thereupon
begins to teach him. 'The Ancient who is difficult to be seen, who has
entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the
abyss; having known him as God, by means of meditation on his Self, the
wise one leaves joy and sorrow behind.' Here the clause 'having known
the God,' points to the divine Being that is to be meditated upon; the
clause 'by means of meditation on his Self points to the attaining agent,
i.e. the individual soul as an object of knowledge; and the clause
'having known him the wise ones leave joy and sorrow behind' points to
the meditation through which Brahman is to be reached. Nakiketas,
pleased with the general instruction received, questions again in order
to receive clearer information on those three matters, 'What thou seest
as different from dharma and different from adharma, as different from
that, from that which is done and not done, as different from what is
past or future, tell me that'; a question referring to three things, viz.
an object to be effected, a means to effect it, and an effecting agent--
each of which is to be different from anything else past, present, or
future [FOOTNOTE 362:1]. Yama thereupon at first instructs him as to the
Pranava, 'That word which all the Vedas record, which all penances
proclaim, desiring which men become religious students; that word I tell
thee briefly--it is Om'--an instruction which implies praise of the
Pranava, and in a general way sets forth that which the Pranava
expresses, e.g. the nature of the object to be reached, the nature of
the person reaching it, and the means for reaching it, such means here
consisting in the word 'Om,' which denotes the object to be reached
[FOOTNOTE 362:2]. He then continues to glorify the Pranava (I, a,
16-17), and thereupon gives special information in the first place about
the nature of the attaining subject, i.e., the individual soul, 'The
knowing Self is not born, it dies not,' &c. Next he teaches Nakiketas as
to the true nature of the object to be attained, viz. the highest
Brahman or Vishnu, in the section beginning 'The Self smaller than
small,' and ending 'Who then knows where he is?' (I, 2, 20-25). Part of
this section, viz. 'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda,' &c., at the
same time teaches that the meditation through which Brahman is attained
is of the nature of devotion (bhakti). Next the sloka I, 3, 1 'There are
the two drinking their reward' shows that, as the object of devout
meditation and the devotee abide together, meditation is easily
performed. Then the section beginning 'Know the Self to be him who
drives in the chariot,' and ending 'the wise say the path is hard' (I,
3, 3-14), teaches the true mode of meditation, and how the devotee
reaches the highest abode of Vishnu; and then there is a final reference
to the object to be reached in I, 3,15, 'That which is without sound,
without touch,' &c. It thus appears that there are references and
questions regarding those three matters only; and hence the 'Un-evolved'
cannot mean the Pradhāna of the Sānkhyas.

[FOOTNOTE 362:1. The commentary proposes different ways of finding those
three objects of enquiry in the words of Nakiketas. According to the
first explanation, 'that which is different from dharma' is a means
differing from all ordinary means; 'adharma' 'not-dharma' is what is not
a means, but the result to be reached: hence 'that which is different
from adharma' is a result differing from all ordinary results. 'What is
different from that' is an agent different from 'that'; i.e. an ordinary
agent, and so on. (Sru. Prakās. p. 1226.)]

[FOOTNOTE 362:2. The syllable 'Om,' which denotes Brahman, is a means
towards meditation (Brahman being meditated upon under this form), and
thus indirectly a means towards reaching Brahman.]




7. And as in the case of the 'Great.'

In the case of the passage 'Higher than the intellect is the Great Self,'
we conclude from the co-ordination of 'the Great' with the Self that
what the text means is not the 'Great' principle of the Sankhyas;
analogously we conclude that the 'Unevolved,' which is said to be higher
than the Self, cannot be the Pradhāna of Kapila's system.




8. On account of there being no special characteristic; as in the case
of the cup.

In the discussion of the following passages also we aim only at refuting
the system of the Sankhyas; not at disproving the existence and nature
of Prakriti, the 'great' principle, the ahamāra, and so on, viewed as
dependent on Brahman. For that they exist in this latter relation is
proved by Scripture as well as Smriti.--A text of the followers of the
Atharvan runs as follows: 'Her who produces all effects, the non-knowing
one, the unborn one, wearing eight forms, the firm one--she is known (by
the Lord) and ruled by him, she is spread out and incited and ruled by
him, gives birth to the world for the benefit of the souls. A cow she is
without beginning and end, a mother producing all beings; white, black,
and red, milking all wishes for the Lord. Many babes unknown drink her.
the impartial one; but one God only, following his own will, drinks her
submitting to him. By his own thought and work the mighty God strongly
enjoys her, who is common to all, the milkgiver, who is pressed by the
sacrifices. The Non-evolved when being counted by twenty-four is called
the Evolved.' This passage evidently describes the nature of Prakriti,
and so on, and the same Upanishad also teaches the Supreme Person who
constitutes the Self of Prakriti, and so on. 'Him they call the twenty-
sixth or also the twenty-seventh; as the Person devoid of all qualities
of the Sānkhyas he is known by the followers of the Atharvan [FOOTNOTE
364:1].'--Other followers of the Atharvan read in their text that there
are sixteen originating principles (prakriti) and eight effected things
(vikāra; Garbha Up. 3).--The Svetāsvataras again set forth the nature of
Prakriti, the soul and the Lord as follows. 'The Lord supports all this
together, the Perishable and the Imperishable, the Evolved and the
Unevolved; the other one is in bondage, since he is an enjoyer; but
having known the God he is free from all fetters. There are two unborn
ones, the one knowing and a Lord, the other without knowledge and lordly
power; there is the one unborn female on whom the enjoyment of all
enjoyers depends; and there is the infinite Self appearing in all shapes,
but itself inactive. When a man finds out these three, that is Brahman.
The Perishable is the Pradhāna, the Immortal and Imperishable is Hara;
the one God rules the Perishable and the Self. From meditation on him,
from union with him, from becoming one with him there is in the end
cessation of all Māya' (Svet. Up. I, 8-10). And 'The sacred verses, the
offerings, the sacrifices, the vows, the past, the future, and all that
the Vcdas declare--from that the Ruler of Māya creates all this; and in
this the other one is bound up through Māya. Know then Prakriti to be
Māya and the great Lord the ruler of Māya; with his members this whole
world is filled' (Svet. Up. V, 9-10). And, further on, 'The master of
Pradhāna and the soul, the lord of the gunas, the cause of the bondage,
existence, and release of worldly existence' (VI, 16). Thus likewise in
Smriti, 'Do thou know both Nature and the soul to be without beginning,
and know all effects and qualities to have sprung from Nature. Nature is
declared to be the cause of the activity of causes and effects, whilst
the soul is the cause of there being enjoyment of pleasure and pain. For
the soul abiding in Nature experiences the qualities derived from Nature,
the reason being its connexion with the qualities, in its births in good
and evil wombs' (Bha. Gī. XIII, 19-21). And 'Goodness, Passion, and
Darkness--these are the qualities which, issuing from nature, bind in
the body the embodied soul, the undecaying one' (XIV, 5). And 'All
beings at the end of a kalpa return into my Nature, and again, at the
beginning of a kalpa, do I send them forth. Presiding over my own nature
again and again do I send forth this vast body of beings which has no
freedom of its own, being subject to Nature.--With me as ruler Nature
brings forth all moving and non-moving things, and for this reason the
world does ever go round' (Bha. Gī. IX, 7, 8, 10). What we therefore
refuse to accept are a Prakriti, and so on, of the kind assumed by
Kapila, i.e. not having their Self in Brahman.--We now proceed to
explain the Sūtra.

We read in the Svetāsvatara-Upanishad 'There is one ajā, red, white, and
black, producing manifold offspring of the same nature. One aja loves
her and lies by her; another leaves her after having enjoyed her.' A
doubt arises here whether this mantra declares a mere Prakriti as
assumed in Kapila's system, or a Prakriti having its Self in Brahman.

The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he points out,
the text refers to the non-originatedness of Prakriti, calling her ajā,
i.e. unborn, and further says that she by herself independently produces
manifold offspring resembling herself. This view is rejected by the
Sūtra, on the ground that there is no intimation of a special
circumstance determining the acceptance of the Prakriti as assumed by
the Sānkhyas, i.e. independent of Brahman; for that she is ajā, i. e.
not born, is not a sufficiently special characteristic. The case is
analogous to that of the 'cup.' In the mantra 'There is a cup having its
mouth below and its bottom above' (Bri. Up. II, 2, 3), the word kamasa
conveys to us only the idea of some implement used in eating, but we are
unable to see what special kind of kamasa is meant; for in the case of
words the meaning of which is ascertained on the ground of their
derivation (as 'kamasa' from 'kam,' to eat or drink), the special sense
of the word in any place cannot be ascertained without the help of
considerations of general possibility, general subject-matter, and so on.
Now in the case of the cup we are able to ascertain that the cup meant
is the head, because there is a complementary passage 'What is called
the cup with its mouth below and its bottom above is the head'; but if
we look out for a similar help to determine the special meaning of ajā,
we find nothing to convince us that the aja, i. e. the 'unborn'
principle, is the Prakriti of the Sānkhyas. Nor is there anything in the
text to convey the idea of that ajā having the power of independent
creation; for the clause 'giving birth to manifold offspring' declares
only that she creates, not that she creates unaided. The mantra does not
therefore tell us about an 'unborn' principle independent of Brahman.--
There moreover is a special reason for understanding by the ajā
something that depends on Brahman. This the following Sūtra states.

[FOOTNOTE 364:1. These quotations are from the Kulikā-Upanishad (transl.
by Deussen, Seventy Upanishads, p. 638 ff.) The translation as given
above follows the readings adopted by Rāmānuja and explained in the--
Sruta-Prakāsikā.]




9. But she begins with light; for thus some read in their text.

The 'but' has assertory force. 'Light' in the Sūtra means Brahman, in
accordance with the meaning of the term as known from texts such as 'On
him the gods meditate, the light of lights' (Bri. Up. X, 4, 16); 'That
light which shines beyond heaven' (Ch. Up. III, 13, 7). 'She begins with
light' thus means 'she has Brahman for her cause.'--'For thus some read
in their text,' i.e. because the members of one Sākhā, viz the
Taittiriyas read in their text that this 'ajā' has Brahman for her cause.
The Mahānārāyana-Upanishad (of the Taittirīyas) at first refers to
Brahman abiding in the hollow of the heart as the object of meditation.
'Smaller than the small, greater than the great, the Self placed in the
hollow of this creature'; next declares that all the worlds and Brahma
and the other gods originated from that Self; and then says that there
sprung from it also this ajā which is the cause of all 'The one ajā
(goat), red, white and black, which gives birth to numerous offspring of
the same shape, one aja (he-goat) loves and lies by her; another one
forsakes her after having enjoyed her.' The subject-matter of the entire
section evidently is to give instruction as to the whole aggregate of
things other than Brahman originating from Brahman and thus having its
Self in it; hence we conclude that also the ajā which gives birth to
manifold creatures like her, and is enjoyed by the soul controlled by
karman, while she is abandoned by the soul possessing true knowledge is,
no less than vital airs, seas, mountains, &c., a creature of Brahman,
and hence has its Self in Brahman. We then apply to the interpretation
of the Svetāsvatara-text the meaning of the analogous Mahānārayana-text,
as determined by the complementary passages, and thus arrive at the
conclusion that the ajā in the former text also is a being having its
Self in Brahman. That this is so, moreover, appears from the
Svetāsvatara itself. For in the early part of that Upanishad, we have
after the introductory question, 'Is Brahman the cause?' the passage
'The sages devoted to meditation and concentration have seen the person
whose Self is the divinity, hidden in its own qualities' (I, 1, 3);
which evidently refers to the ajā as being of the nature of a power of
the highest Brahman. And as further on also (viz. in the passages 'From
that the Māyin creates all this, and in this the other is bound up
through Māya'; 'Know then Prakriti to be Māyā and the Great Lord the
ruler of Māyā'; and 'he who rules every place of birth,' V, 9-11) the
very same being is referred to, there remains not even a shadow of proof
for the assertion that the mantra under discussion refers to an
independent Prakriti as assumed by the Sānkhyas.

But a further objection is raised, if the Prakriti denoted by ajā begins
with, i.e. is caused by Brahman, how can it be called ajā, i.e. the non-
produced one; or, if it is non-produced, how can it be originated by
Brahman? To this the next Sūtra replies.




10. And on account of the teaching of formation (i.e. creation) there is
no contradiction; as in the case of the honey.

The 'and' expresses disposal of a doubt that had arisen. There is no
contradiction between the Prakriti being ajā and originating from light.
On account of instruction being given about the formation (kalpana), i.e.
creation of the world. This interpretation of 'kalpana' is in agreement
with the use of the verb klip in the text, 'as formerly the creator made
(akalpayat) sun and moon.'

In our text the sloka 'from that the Lord of Māyā creates all this'
gives instruction about the creation of the world. From that, i.e. from
matter in its subtle causal state when it is not yet divided, the Lord
of all creates the entire Universe. From this statement about creation
we understand that Prakriti exists in a twofold state according as it is
either cause or effect. During a pralaya it unites itself with Brahman
and abides in its subtle state, without any distinction of names and
forms; it then is called the 'Unevolved,' and by other similar names. At
the time of creation, on the other hand, there reveal themselves in
Prakriti Goodness and the other gunas, it divides itself according to
names and forms, and then is called the 'Evolved,' and so on, and,
transforming itself into fire, water, and earth, it appears as red,
white, and black. In its causal condition it is ajā, i.e. unborn, in its
effected condition it is 'caused by light, i.e. Brahman'; hence there is
no contradiction. The case is analogous to that of the 'honey.' The sun
in his causal state is one only, but in his effected state the Lord
makes him into honey in so far namely as he then, for the purpose of
enjoyment on the part of the Vasus and other gods, is the abode of
nectar brought about by sacrificial works to be learned from the Rik and
the other Vedas; and further makes him to rise and to set. And between
these two conditions there is no contradiction. This is declared in the
Madhuvidyā (Ch. Up. III), from 'The sun is indeed the honey of the Devas,'
down to 'when from thence he has risen upwards he neither rises nor
sets; being one he stands in the centre'--'one' here means 'of one
nature.'--The conclusion therefore is that the Svetāsvatara mantra under
discussion refers to Prakriti as having her Self in Brahman, not to the
Prakriti assumed by the Sānkhyas.

Others, however, are of opinion that the one ajā of which the mantra
speaks has for its characteristics light, water, and earth. To them we
address the following questions. Do you mean that by what the text
speaks of as an ajā, consisting of fire, water, and earth, we have to
understand those three elements only; or Brahman in the form of those
three elements; or some power or principle which is the cause of the
three elements? The first alternative is in conflict with the
circumstance that, while fire, water, and earth are several things, the
text explicitly refers to _one_ Ajā. Nor may it be urged that fire,
water, and earth, although several, become one, by being made tripartite
(Ch. Up. VI, 3, 3); for this making them tripartite, does not take away
their being several; the text clearly showing that each several element
becomes tripartite, 'Let me make each of these three divine beings
tripartite.'--The second alternative again divides itself into two
alternatives. Is the one ajā Brahman in so far as having passed over
into fire, water, and earth; or Brahman in so far as abiding within
itself and not passing over into effects? The former alternative is
excluded by the consideration that it does not remove plurality (which
cannot be reconciled with the _one_ ajā). The second alternative is
contradicted by the text calling that ajā red, white, and black; and
moreover Brahman viewed as abiding within itself cannot be characterised
by fire, water, and earth. On the third alternative it has to be assumed
that the text denotes by the term 'ajā' the three elements, and that on
this basis there is imagined a causal condition of these elements; but
better than this assumption it evidently is to accept the term 'ajā' as
directly denoting the causal state of those three elements as known from
scripture.

Nor can we admit the contention that the term 'ajā' is meant to teach
that Prakriti should metaphorically be viewed as a she-goat; for such a
view would be altogether purposeless. Where--in the passage 'Know the
Self to be him who drives in the chariot'--the body, and so on, are
compared to a chariot, and so on, the object is to set forth the means
of attaining Brahman; where the sun is compared to honey, the object is
to illustrate the enjoyment of the Vasus and other gods; but what
similar object could possibly be attained by directing us to view
Prakriti as a goat? Such a metaphorical view would in fact be not merely
useless; it would be downright irrational. Prakriti is a non-intelligent
principle, the causal substance of the entire material Universe, and
constituting the means for the experience of pleasure and pain, and for
the final release, of all intelligent souls which are connected with it
from all eternity. Now it would be simply contrary to good sense,
metaphorically to transfer to Prakriti such as described the nature of a
she-goat--which is a sentient being that gives birth to very few
creatures only, enters only occasionally into connexion with others, is
of small use only, is not the cause of herself being abandoned by others,
and is capable of abandoning those connected with her. Nor does it
recommend itself to take the word ajā (understood to mean 'she-goat')
in a sense different from that in which we understand the term 'aja'
which occurs twice in the same mantra.--Let then all three terms be
taken in the same metaphorical sense (aja meaning he-goat).--It would be
altogether senseless, we reply, to compare the soul which absolutely
dissociates itself from Prakriti ('Another aja leaves her after having
enjoyed her') to a he-goat which is able to enter again into connexion
with what he has abandoned, or with anything else.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the cup.'




11. Not from the mention of the number even, on account of the diversity
and of the excess.

The Vājasaneyins read in their text 'He in whom the five "five-people"
and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self; I, who know,
believe him to be Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 17). The doubt here arises
whether this text be meant to set forth the categories as established in
Kapila's doctrine, or not.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former view,
on the ground that the word 'five-people,' qualified by the word 'five,'
intimates the twenty-five categories of the Sānkhyas. The compound 'five-
people' (pańkajanāh) denotes groups of five beings, just as the term
pańka-pūlyah denotes aggregates of five bundles of grass. And as we want
to know how many such groups there are, the additional qualification
'five' intimates that there are five such groups; just as if it were
said 'five five-bundles, i. e. five aggregates consisting of five
bundles each.' We thus understand that the 'five five-people' are twenty-
five things, and as the mantra in which the term is met with refers to
final release, we recognise the twenty-five categories known from the
Sānkhya-smriti which are here referred to as objects to be known by
persons desirous of release. For the followers of Kapila teach that
'there is the fundamental causal substance which is not an effect. There
are seven things, viz. the Mahat, and so on, which are causal substances
as well as effects. There are sixteen effects. The soul is neither a
causal substance nor an effect' (Sān. Kā. 3). The mantra therefore is
meant to intimate the categories known from the Sānkhya.--To this the
Sūtra replies that from the mention of the number twenty-five supposed
to be implied in the expression 'the five five-people,' it does not
follow that the categories of the Sānkhyas are meant. 'On account of the
diversity,' i.e. on account of the five-people further qualified by the
number five being different from the categories of the Sānkhyas. For in
the text 'in whom the five five-people and the ether rest,' the 'in
whom' shows the five-people to have their abode, and hence their Self,
in Brahman; and in the continuation of the text, 'him I believe the Self,'
the 'him' connecting itself with the preceding 'in whom' is recognised
to be Brahman. The five five-people must therefore be different from the
categories of the Sānkhya-system. 'And on account of the excess.'
Moreover there is, in the text under discussion, an excess over and
above the Sānkhya categories, consisting in the Self denoted by the
relative pronoun 'in whom,' and in the specially mentioned Ether. What
the text designates therefore is the Supreme Person who is the Universal
Lord in whom all things abide--such as he is described in the text
quoted above, 'Therefore some call him the twenty-sixth, and others the
twenty-seventh.' The 'even' in the Sūtra is meant to intimate that the
'five five-people' can in no way mean the twenty-five categories, since
there is no pentad of groups consisting of five each. For in the case of
the categories of the Sānkhyas there are no generic characteristics or
the like which could determine the arrangement of those categories in
fives. Nor must it be urged against this that there is a determining
reason for such an arrangement in so far as the tattvas of the Sānkhyas
form natural groups comprising firstly, the five organs of action;
secondly, the five sense-organs; thirdly, the five gross elements;
fourthly, the subtle parts of those elements; and fifthly, the five
remaining tattvas; for as the text under discussion mentions the ether
by itself, the possibility of a group consisting of the five gross
elements is precluded. We cannot therefore take the compound 'five
people' as denoting a group consisting of five constituent members, but,
in agreement with Pān. II, 1, 50, as merely being a special name. There
are certain beings the special name of which is 'five-people,' and of
these beings the additional word 'pańka' predicates that they are five
in number. The expression is thus analogous to the term 'the seven seven-
rishis' (where the term 'seven-rishis' is to be understood as the name of
a certain class of rishis only).--Who then are the beings called 'five-
people?'--To this question the next Sūtra replies.




12. The breath, and so on, on the ground of the complementary passage.

We see from a complementary passage, viz. 'They who know the breath of
breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the
mind of mind,' that the 'five-people' are the breath, and eye, and so on,
all of which have their abode in Brahman.

But, an objection is raised, while the mantra 'in whom the five five-
people,' &c., is common to the Kānvas and the Mādhyandinas, the
complementary passage 'they who know the breath of breath,' &c., in the
text of the former makes no mention of food, and hence we have no reason
to say that the 'five-people' in their text are the breath, eye, and so
on.

To this objection the next Sūtra replies.




13. By light, food not being (mentioned in the text) of some.

In the text of some, viz. the Kānvas, where food is not mentioned, the
five-people are recognised to be the five senses, owing to the phrase
'of lights' which is met with in another complementary passage. In the
mantra, 'him the gods worship as the light of lights,' which precedes
the mantra about the 'five-people,' Brahman is spoken of as the light of
lights, and this suggests the idea of certain lights the activity of
which depends on Brahman. The mantra leaves it undetermined what these
lights are; but from what follows about the 'five-people,' &c., we learn
that what is meant are the senses which light up as it were their
respective objects. In 'the breath of breath' the second 'breath' (in
the genitive case) denotes the sense-organ of touch, as that organ is
connected with air, and as the vital breath (which would otherwise
suggest itself as the most obvious explanation of prāna) does not
harmonise with the metaphorical term 'light.' 'Of the eye' refers to the
organ of sight; 'of the ear' to the organ of hearing. 'Of food'
comprises the senses of smell and taste together: it denotes the sense
of smell on the ground that that sense is connected with earth, which
may be 'food,' and the sense of taste in so far as 'anna' may be also
explained as that by means of which eating goes on (adyate). 'Of mind'
denotes mind, i. e. the so-called internal organ. Taste and smell thus
being taken in combination, we have the required number of five, and we
thus explain the 'five-people' as the sense-organs which throw light on
their objects, together with the internal organ, i.e. mind. The meaning
of the clause about the 'five-people' therefore is that the senses--
called 'five-people'--and the elements, represented by the Ether, have
their basis in Brahman; and as thus all beings are declared to abide in
Brahman, the five 'five-people' can in no way be the twenty-five
categories assumed by the Sānkhyas.--The general Conclusion is that the
Vedānta-texts, whether referring to numbers or not, nowhere set forth
the categories established in Kapila's system.




14. And on account of (Brahman) as described being declared to be the
cause with regard to Ether, and so on.

Here the philosopher who holds the Pradhāna to be the general cause
comes forward with another objection. The Vedānta-texts, he says, do not
teach that creation proceeds from one and the same agent only, and you
therefore have no right to hold that Brahman is the sole cause of the
world. In one place it is said that our world proceeded from 'Being',
'Being only this was in the beginning' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1). In other
places the world is said to have sprung from 'Non-being', 'Non-being
indeed this was in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, i); and 'Non-being
only was this in the beginning; it became Being' (Ch. Up. III, 19, 1).
As the Vedānta-texts are thus not consequent in their statements
regarding the creator, we cannot conclude from them that Brahman is the
sole cause of the world. On the other hand, those texts do enable us to
conclude that the Pradhāna only is the universal cause. For the text
'Now all this was then undeveloped' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7) teaches that the
world was merged in the undeveloped Pradhāna. and the subsequent clause,
'That developed itself by form and name,' that from that Undeveloped
there resulted the creation of the world. For the Undeveloped is that
which is not distinguished by names and forms, and this is none other
than the Pradhāna. And as this Pradhāna is at the same time eternal, as
far as its essential nature is concerned, and the substrate of all
change, there is nothing contradictory in the different accounts of
creation calling it sometimes 'Being' and sometimes 'Non-being'; while,
on the other hand, these terms cannot, without contradiction, both be
applied to Brahman. The causality of the Undeveloped having thus been
ascertained, such expressions as 'it _thought_, may I be many,' must be
interpreted as meaning its being about to proceed to creation. The terms
'Self' and 'Brahman' also may be applied to the Pradhāna in so far as it
is all-pervading (atman from āpnoti), and preeminently great (brihat).
We therefore conclude that the only cause of the world about which the
Vedānta-texts give information is the Pradhāna.

This view is set aside by the Sūtra. The word _and_ is used in the sense
of _but_. It is possible to ascertain from the Vedānta-texts that the
world springs from none other than the highest Brahman, which is all-
knowing, lord of all, free from all shadow of imperfection, capable of
absolutely realising its purposes, and so on; since scripture declares
Brahman as described to be the cause of Ether, and so on. By 'Brahman as
described' is meant 'Brahman distinguished by omniscience and other
qualities, as described in the Sūtra "that from which the origination,
and so on, of the world proceed," and in other places.' That Brahman
only is declared by scripture to be the cause of Ether, and so on, i.e.
the being which is declared to be the cause in passages such as 'From
that Self sprang Ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'that sent forth fire'(Ch.
Up. VI, 2, 3), is none other than Brahman possessing omniscience and
similar qualities. For the former of these texts follows on the passage
'The True, intelligence, infinite is Brahman; he reaches all desires
together with the intelligent Brahman,' which introduces Brahman as the
general subject-matter--that Brahman being then referred to by means of
the connecting words 'from that.' In the same way the 'that' (in 'that
sent forth fire') refers back to the omniscient Brahman introduced in
the clause 'that thought, may I be many.' This view is confirmed by a
consideration of all the accounts of creation, and we hence conclude
that Brahman is the sole cause of the world.--But the text 'Non-being
indeed this was in the beginning' calls the general cause 'something
that is not'; how then can you say that we infer from the Vedānta-texts
as the general cause of the world a Brahman that is all-knowing,
absolutely realises its purposes, and so on?--To this question the next
Sūtra replies.




15. From connexion.

The fact is that Brahman intelligent, consisting of bliss, &c., connects
itself also with the passage 'Non-being was this in the beginning'
(Taitt. Up. II, 7). For the section of the text which precedes that
passage (viz. 'Different from this Self consisting of understanding is
the Self consisting of Bliss;--he wished, may I be many;--he created all
whatever there is. Having created he entered into it; having entered it
he became sat and tyat') clearly refers to Brahman consisting of Bliss,
which realises its purposes, creates all beings, and entering into them
is the Self of all. When, therefore, after this we meet with the sloka
('Non-being this was in the beginning') introduced by the words 'On this
there is also this sloka'--which shows that the sloka is meant to throw
light on what precedes; and when further or we have the passage 'From
fear of it the wind blows' &c., which, referring to the same Brahman,
predicates of it universal rulership, bliss of nature, and so on; we
conclude with certainty that the sloka about 'Non-being' also refers to
Brahman. As during a pralaya the distinction of names and forms does not
exist, and Brahman also then does not exist in so far as connected with
names and forms, the text applies to Brahman the term 'Non-being.' The
text 'Non-being only this was in the beginning' explains itself in the
same way.--Nor can we admit the contention that the text 'Now all this
was then undeveloped 'refers to the Pradhāna as the cause of the world;
for the Undeveloped there spoken of is nothing else but Brahman in so
far as its body is not yet evolved. For the text continues 'That same
being entered thither to the very tips of the finger-nails;' 'When
seeing, eye by name; when hearing, ear by name; when thinking, mind by
name;' 'Let men meditate upon him as Self;' where the introductory words
'that same being' refer back to the Undeveloped--which thus is said to
enter into all things and thereby to become their ruler. And it is known
from another text also (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2) that it is the all-creative
highest Brahman which enters into its creation and evolves names and
forms. The text 'Having entered within, the ruler of creatures, the Self
of all' moreover shows that the creative principle enters into its
creatures for the purpose of ruling them, and such entering again cannot
be attributed to the non-sentient Pradhāna. The Undeveloped therefore is
Brahman in that state where its body is not yet developed; and when the
text continues 'it developed itself by names and forms' the meaning is
that Brahman developed itself in so far as names and forms were
distinguished in the world that constitutes Brahman's body. On this
explanation of the texts relating to creation we further are enabled to
take the thought, purpose, &c., attributed to the creative principle, in
their primary literal sense. And, we finally remark, neither the term
'Brahman' nor the term 'Self in any way suits the Pradhāna, which is
neither absolutely great nor pervading in the sense of entering into
things created with a view to ruling them. It thus remains a settled
conclusion that Brahman is the sole cause of the world.--Here terminates
the adhikarana of '(Brahman's) causality.'




16. Because it denotes the world.

The Sānkhya comes forward with a further objection. Although the
Vedānta-texts teach an intelligent principle to be the cause of the
world, they do not present to us as objects of knowledge anything that
could be the cause of the world, apart from the Pradhāna and the soul as
established by the Sānkhya-system. For the Kaushītakins declare in their
text, in the dialogue of Bālāki and Ajātasatru, that none but the
enjoying (individual) soul is to be known as the cause of the world,
'Shall I tell you Brahman? He who is the maker of those persons and of
whom this is the work (or "to whom this work belongs") he indeed is to
be known' (Kau. Up. IV, 19). Bālāki at the outset proposes Brahman as
the object of instruction, and when he is found himself not to know
Brahman, Ajātasatru instructs him about it, 'he indeed is to be known.'
But from the relative clause 'to whom this work belongs,' which connects
the being to be known with work, we infer that by Brahman we have here
to understand the enjoying soul which is the ruler of Prakriti, not any
other being. For no other being is connected with work; work, whether
meritorious or the contrary, belongs to the individual soul only. Nor
must you contest this conclusion on the ground that 'work' is here to be
explained as meaning the object of activity, so that the sense of the
clause would be 'he of whom this entire world, as presented by
perception and the other means of knowledge, is the work.' For in that
case the separate statements made in the two clauses, 'who is the maker
of those persons' and 'of whom this is the work,' would be devoid of
purport (the latter implying the former). Moreover, the generally
accepted meaning of the word 'karman,' both in Vedic and worldly speech,
is work in the sense of good and evil actions. And as the origination of
the world is caused by actions of the various individual souls, the
designation of 'maker of those persons' also suits only the individual
soul. The meaning of the whole passage therefore is 'He who is the cause
of the different persons that have their abode in the disc of the sun,
and so on, and are instrumental towards the retributive experiences of
the individual souls; and to whom there belongs karman, good and evil,
to which there is due his becoming such a cause; _he_ indeed is to be
known, _his_ essential nature is to be cognised in distinction from
Prakriti.' And also in what follows, 'The two came to a person who was
asleep. He pushed him with a stick,' &c., what is said about the
sleeping man being pushed, roused, &c., all points only to the
individual soul being the topic of instruction. Further on also the text
treats of the individual soul only, 'As the master feeds with his
people, nay as his people feed on the master, thus does this conscious
Self feed with the other Selfs.' We must consider also the following
passage--which contains the explanation given by Ajatasatru to Bālāki,
who had been unable to say where the soul goes at the time of deep
sleep--' There are the arteries called Hitas. In these the person is;
when sleeping he sees no dream, then he (or that, i.e. the aggregate of
the sense-organs) becomes one with this prāna alone. Then speech goes to
him with all names, &c., the mind with all thoughts. And when he awakes,
then, as from a burning fire sparks proceed in all directions, thus from
that Self the prānas proceed each towards its place, from the prānas the
gods, from the gods the worlds.' The individual soul which passes
through the states of dream, deep sleep and waking, and is that into
which there are merged and from which there proceed speech and all the
other organs, is here declared to be the abode of deep sleep 'then it
(viz. the aggregate of the organs) becomes one in that prāna.' Prāna
here means the individual soul in so far as supporting life; for the
text continues 'when _that_ one awakes' and neither the vital breath nor
the Lord (both of whom might be proposed as explanations of prāna) can
be said to be asleep and to wake. Or else 'asmin prāne' might be
explained as 'in the vital breath (which abides) in the individual
soul,' the meaning of the clause being 'all the organs, speech and so
on, become one in the vital breath which itself abides in this soul.'
The word 'prāna' would thus be taken in its primary literal sense; yet
all the same the soul constitutes the topic of the section, the vital
breath being a mere instrument of the soul. The Brahman mentioned at the
outset therefore is none other than the individual soul, and there is
nothing to prove a lord different from it. And as the attributes which
the texts ascribe to the general cause, viz. thought and so on, are
attributes of intelligent beings only, we arrive at the conclusion that
what constitutes the cause of the world is the non-intelligent Pradhāna
guided by the intelligent soul.

This primā facie view the Sūtra disposes of, by saying 'because (the
work) denotes the world.' It is not the insignificant individual soul--
which is under the influence of its good and evil works, and by
erroneously imputing to itself the attributes of Prakriti becomes the
cause of the effects of the latter--that is the topic of our text; but
rather the Supreme Person who is free from all shadow of imperfection
such as Nescience and the like, who is a treasure of all possible
auspicious qualities in their highest degree of perfection, who is the
sole cause of this entire world. This is proved by the circumstance that
the term 'work' connected with 'this' (in 'of whom this (is) the work')
denotes the Universe which is an effect of the Supreme Person. For the
word 'this' must, on account of its sense, the general topic of the
section and so on, be taken in a non-limited meaning, and hence denotes
the entire world, as presented by Perception and the other means of
knowledge, with all its sentient and non-sentient beings. That the term
'work' does not here denote good and evil actions, appears from the
following consideration of the context. Bālāki at first offers to teach
Brahman ('Shall I tell you Brahman?') and thereupon holds forth on
various persons abiding in the sun, and so on, as being Brahman.
Ajatasatru however refuses to accept this instruction as not setting
forth Brahman, and finally, in order to enlighten Bālāki, addresses him
'He, O Bālāki, who is the maker of those persons,' &c. Now as the
different personal souls abiding in the sun, &c., and connected with
karman in the form of good and evil actions, are known already by Bālāki,
the term 'karman'--met with in the next clause--is clearly meant to
throw light on some Person so far not known to Bālāki, and therefore
must be taken to mean not good and evil deeds or action in general, but
rather the entire Universe in so far as being the outcome of activity.
On this interpretation only the passage gives instruction about
something not known before. Should it be said that this would be the
case also if the subject to which the instruction refers were the true
essential nature of the soul, indicated here by its connexion with
karman, we reply that this would involve the (objectionable) assumption
of so-called implication (lakshanā), in so far namely as what the clause
would directly intimate is (not the essential nature of the soul as free
from karman but rather) the connexion of the soul with karman. Moreover
if the intention of the passage were this, viz. to give instruction as
to the soul, the latter being pointed at by means of the reference to
karman, the intention would be fully accomplished by saying 'to whom
karman belongs, he is to be known;' while in the text as it actually
stands 'of whom this is the karman' the 'this' would be unmeaning. The
meaning of the two separate clauses 'who is the maker of those persons'
and 'of whom this is the work' is as follows. He who is the creator of
those persons whom you called Brahman, and of whom those persons are the
creatures; he of whom this entire world is the effect, and before whom
all things sentient and non-sentient are equal in so far as being
produced by him; he, the highest and universal cause, the Supreme Person,
is the object to be known. The meaning implied here is--although the
origination of the world has for its condition the deeds of individual
souls, yet those souls do not independently originate the means for
their own retributive experience, but experience only what the Lord has
created to that end in agreement with their works. The individual soul,
hence, cannot stand in creative relation to those persons.--What the
text under discussion inculcates as the object of knowledge therefore is
the highest Brahman which is known from all Vedānta-texts as the
universal cause.




17. Should it be said that this is not so on account of the inferential
marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air; we reply that this
has been explained before.

With reference to the plea urged by the Pūrvapakshin that, owing to
inferential marks pointing to the individual soul, and the circumstance
of mention being made of the chief vital air, we must decide that the
section treats of the enjoying individual soul and not of the highest
Self, the Sūtra remarks that this argumentation has already been
disposed of, viz. in connexion with the Pratardana vidyā. For there it
was shown that when a text is ascertained, on the ground of a
comprehensive survey of initial and concluding clauses, to refer to
Brahman, all inferential marks which point to other topics must be
interpreted so as to fall in with the principal topic. Now in our text
Brahman is introduced at the outset 'Shall I tell you Brahman?' it is
further mentioned in the middle of the section, for the clause 'of whom
this is the work' does not refer to the soul in general but to the
highest Person who is the cause of the whole world; and at the end again
we hear of a reward which connects itself only with meditations on
Brahman, viz. supreme sovereignty preceded by the conquest of all evil.
'Having overcome all evil he obtains pre-eminence among all beings,
sovereignty and supremacy--yea, he who knows this.' The section thus
being concerned with Brahman, the references to the individual soul and
to the chief vital air must also be interpreted so as to fall in with
Brahman. In the same way it was shown above that the references to the
individual soul and the chief vital air which are met with in the
Pratardana vidyā really explain themselves in connexion with a threefold
meditation on Brahman. As in the passage 'Then with this prāna alone he
becomes one' the two words 'this' and 'prāna' may be taken as co-
ordinated and it hence would be inappropriate to separate them (and to
explain 'in the prāna which abides in this soul'), and as the word
'prāna' is ascertained to mean Brahman also, we must understand the
mention of prāna to be made with a view to meditation on Brahman in so
far as having the prāna for its body. But how can the references to the
individual soul be put in connexion with Brahman?--This point is taken
up by the next Sūtra.




18. But Jaimini thinks that it has another purport, on account of the
question and answer; and thus some also.

The 'but' is meant to preclude the idea that the mention made of the
individual soul enables us to understand the whole section as concerned
with that soul.--The teacher Jaimini is of opinion that the mention made
of the individual soul has another meaning, i.e. aims at conveying the
idea of what is different from the individual soul, i.e. the nature of
the highest Brahman. 'On account of question and answer.' According to
the story told in the Upanishad, Ajātasatru leads Bālāki to where a
sleeping man is resting, and convinces him that the soul is different
from breath, by addressing the sleeping person, in whom breath only is
awake, with names belonging to prāna [FOOTNOTE 383:1] without the sleeper
being awaked thereby, and after that rousing him by a push of his staff.
Then, with a view to teaching Bālāki the difference of Brahman from the
individual soul, he asks him the following questions: 'Where, O Bālāki,
did this person here sleep? Where was he? Whence did he thus come back?'
To these questions he thereupon himself replies, 'When sleeping he sees
no dream, then he becomes one in that prāna alone.--From that Self the
organs proceed each towards its place, from the organs the gods, from
the gods the worlds.' Now this reply, no less than the questions,
clearly refers to the highest Self as something different from the
individual Self. For that entering into which the soul, in the state of
deep sleep, attains its true nature and enjoys complete serenity, being
free from the disturbing experiences of pleasure and pain that accompany
the states of waking and of dream; and that from which it again returns
to the fruition of pleasure and pain; that is nothing else but the
highest Self. For, as other scriptural texts testify ('Then he becomes
united with the True,' Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1; 'Embraced by the intelligent
Self he knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within,' Bri, Up.
IV, 3, 21), the abode of deep sleep is the intelligent Self which is
different from the individual Self, i.e. the highest Self. We thus
conclude that the reference, in question and answer, to the individual
soul subserves the end of instruction being given about what is
different from that soul, i.e. the highest Self. We hence also reject
the Pūrvapakshin's contention that question and answer refer to the
individual soul, that the veins called hita are the abode of deep sleep,
and that the well-known clause as to the prāna must be taken to mean
that the aggregate of the organs becomes one in the individual soul
called prāna. For the veins are the abode, not of deep sleep, but of
dream, and, as we have shown above, Brahman only is the abode of deep
sleep; and the text declares that the individual soul, together with all
its ministering organs, becomes one with, and again proceeds from,
Brahman only--which the text designates as Prāna.--Moreover some, viz.
the Vājasaneyins in this same colloquy of Bālāki and Ajātasatru as
recorded in their text, clearly distinguish from the vijńāna-maya, i.e.
the individual soul in the state of deep sleep, the highest Self which
then is the abode of the individual soul. 'Where was then the person,
consisting of intelligence, and from whence did he thus come back?--When
he was thus asleep, then the intelligent person, having through the
intelligence of the senses absorbed within himself all intelligence,
lies in the ether that is within the heart.' Now the word 'ether' is
known to denote the highest Self; cf. the text 'there is within that the
small ether'(Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 1). This shows us that the individual soul
is mentioned in the Vājasaneyin passage to the end of setting forth what
is different from it, viz. the prājńa Self, i.e. the highest Brahman.
The general conclusion therefore is that the Kaushītaki-text under
discussion proposes as the object of knowledge something that is
different from the individual soul, viz. the highest Brahman which is
the cause of the whole world, and that hence the Vedānta-texts nowhere
intimate that general causality belongs either to the individual soul or
to the Pradhāna under the soul's guidance. Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'denotation of the world.'

[FOOTNOTE 383:1. The names with which the king addresses the sleeper are
_Great one, clad in white raiment, Soma, king._ The Sru. Pra. comments
as follows: _Great one_; because according to Sruti Prāna is the oldest
and best. _Clad in white raiment_; because Sruti says that water is the
raiment of Prāna; and elsewhere, that what is white belongs to water.
_Soma_; because scripture says 'of this prāna water is the body, light
the form, viz. yonder moon.' _King_; for Sruti says 'Prāna indeed is the
ruler.']




19. On account of the connected meaning of the sentences.

In spite of the conclusion arrived at there may remain a suspicion that
here and there in the Upanishads texts are to be met with which aim at
setting forth the soul as maintained in Kapila's system, and that hence
there is no room for a being different from the individual soul and
called Lord. This suspicion the Sūtra undertakes to remove, in connexion
with the Maitreyi-brāhmana, in the Brihadaranyaka. There we read 'Verily,
a husband is dear, not for the love of the husband, but for the love of
the Self a husband is dear, and so on. Everything is dear, not for the
love of everything, but for the love of the Self everything is dear. The
Self should be seen, should be heard, should be reflected on, should be
meditated upon. When the Self has been seen, heard, reflected upon,
meditated upon, then all this is known' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 6).--Here the
doubt arises whether the Self enjoined in this passage as the object of
seeing, &c., be the soul as held by the Sānkhyas, or the Supreme Lord,
all-knowing, capable of realising all his purposes, and so on. The
Pūrvapakshin upholds the former alternative. For, he says, the beginning
no less than the middle and the concluding part of the section conveys
the idea of the individual soul only. In the beginning the individual
soul only is meant, as appears from the connexion of the Self with
husband, wife, children, wealth, cattle, and so on. This is confirmed by
the middle part of the section where the Self is said to be connected
with origination and destruction, 'a mass of knowledge, he having risen
from these elements vanishes again into them. When he has departed there
is no more consciousness.' And in the end we have 'whereby should he
know the knower'; where we again recognise the knowing subject, i.e. the
individual soul, not the Lord. We thus conclude that the whole text is
meant to set forth the soul as held by the Sānkhyas.--But in the
beginning there is a clause, viz. 'There is no hope of immortality by
wealth,' which shows that the whole section is meant to instruct us as
to the means of immortality; how then can it be meant to set forth the
individual soul only?--You state the very reason proving that the text
is concerned with the individual soul only! For according to the Sānkhya-
system immortality is obtained through the cognition of the true nature
of the soul viewed as free from all erroneous imputation to itself of
the attributes of non-sentient matter; and the text therefore makes it
its task to set forth, for the purpose of immortality, the essential
nature of the soul free from all connexion with Prakriti, 'the _Self_
should be heard,' and so on. And as the souls dissociated from Prakriti
are all of a uniform nature, all souls are known through the knowledge
of the soul free from Prakriti, and the text therefore rightly says that
through the Self being known everything is known. And as the essential
nature of the Self is of one and the same kind, viz. knowledge or
intelligence, in all beings from gods down to plants, the text rightly
asserts the unity of the Self 'that Self is all this'; and denies all
otherness from the Self, on the ground of the characteristic attributes
of gods and so on really being of the nature of the Not-self, 'he is
abandoned by everything,' &c. The clause, 'For where there is duality as
it were,' which denies plurality, intimates that the plurality
introduced into the homogeneous Self by the different forms--such as of
gods, and so on--assumed by Prakriti, is false. And there is also no
objection to the teaching that 'the Rig-veda and so on are breathed
forth from that great being (i.e. Prakriti); for the origination of the
world is caused by the soul in its quality as ruler of Prakriti.--It
thus being ascertained that the whole Maitreyī-brāhmana is concerned
with the soul in the Sānkhya sense, we, according to the principle of
the unity of purport of all Vedānta-texts, conclude that they all treat
of the Sānkhya soul only, and that hence the cause of the world is to be
found not in a so-called Lord but in Prakriti ruled and guided by the
soul.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The whole text refers
to the Supreme Lord only; for on this supposition only a satisfactory
connexion of the parts of the text can be made out. On being told by
Yājńavalkya that there is no hope of immortality through wealth,
Maitreyī expresses her slight regard for wealth and all such things as
do not help to immortality, and asks to be instructed as to the means of
immortality only ('What should I do with that by which I do not become
immortal? What my lord knows tell that clearly to me'). Now the Self
which Yājńavalkya, responding to her requests, points out to her as the
proper object of knowledge, can be none other than the highest Self; for
other scriptural texts clearly teach that the only means of reaching
immortality is to know the Supreme Person--'Having known him thus man
passes beyond death'; 'Knowing him thus he becomes immortal here, there
is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8). The knowledge of the true
nature of the individual soul which obtains immortality, and is a mere
manifestation of the power of the Supreme Person, must be held to be
useful towards the cognition of the Supreme Person who brings about
Release, but is not in itself instrumental towards such Release; the
being the knowledge of which the text declares to be the means of
immortality is therefore the highest Self only. Again, the causal power
with regard to the entire world which is expressed in the passage, 'from
that great Being there were breathed forth the Rig veda,' &c., cannot
possibly belong to the mere individual soul which in its state of
bondage is under the influence of karman and in the state of release has
nothing to do with the world; it can in fact belong to the Supreme
Person only. Again, what the text says as to everything being known by
the knowledge of one thing ('By the seeing indeed of the Self,' &c.) is
possible only in the case of a Supreme Self which constitutes the Self
of all. What the Pūrvapakshin said as to everything being known through
the cognition of the one individual soul, since all individual souls are
of the same type--this also cannot be upheld; for as long as there is a
knowledge of the soul only and not also of the world of non-sentient
things, there is no knowledge of everything. And when the text
enumerates different things ('this Brahman class, this Kshatra class,'
&c.), and then concludes 'all this is that Self'--where the 'this' denotes
the entire Universe of animate and inanimate beings as known through
Perception, Inference, and so on--universal unity such as declared here
is possible only through a highest Self which is the Self of all. It is
not, on the other hand, possible that what the word 'this' denotes, i.e.
the whole world of intelligent and non-intelligent creatures, should be
one with the personal soul as long as it remains what it is, whether
connected with or disassociated from non-sentient matter. In the same
spirit the passage, 'All things abandon him who views all things
elsewhere than in the Self,' finds fault with him who views anything
apart from the universal Self. The qualities also which in the earlier
Maitreyī-brāhmana (II, 4, 12) are predicated of the being under
discussion, viz. greatness, endlessness, unlimitedness, cannot belong to
any one else but the highest Self. That Self therefore is the topic of
the Brāhmana.

We further demur to our antagonist's maintaining that the entire
Brāhmana treats of the individual soul because that soul is at the
outset represented as the object of enquiry, this being inferred from
its connexion with husband, wife, wealth, &c. For if the clause 'for the
love (literally, _for the _desire) of the Self refers to the individual
Self, we cannot help connecting (as, in fact, we must do in any case)
that Self with the Self referred to in the subsequent clause, 'the Self
indeed is to be seen,' &c.; the connexion having to be conceived in that
way that the information given in the former clause somehow subserves
the cognition of the Self enjoined in the latter clause. 'For the desire
of the Self would then mean 'for the attainment of the objects desired
by the Self.' But if it is first said that husband, wife, &c., are dear
because they fulfil the wishes of the individual Self, it could hardly
be said further on that the nature of that Self must be enquired into;
for what, in the circumstances of the case, naturally is to be enquired
into and searched for are the dear objects but not the true nature of
him to whom those objects are dear, apart from the objects themselves.
It would certainly be somewhat senseless to declare that since husband,
wife, &c., are dear because they fulfil the desires of the individual
soul, therefore, setting aside those dear objects, we must enquire into
the true nature of that soul apart from all the objects of its desire.
On the contrary, it having been declared that husband, wife, &c., are
dear not on account of husband, wife, &c., but on account of the Self,
they should not be dropped, but included in the further investigation,
just because they subserve the Self. And should our opponent (in order
to avoid the difficulty of establishing a satisfactory connexion between
the different clauses) maintain that the clause, 'but everything is dear
for the love of the Self,' is not connected with the following clause,
'the Self is to be seen,' &c., we point out that this would break the
whole connexion of the Brahmāna. And if we allowed such a break, we
should then be unable to point out what is the use of the earlier part
of the Brahmāna. We must therefore attempt to explain the connexion in
such a way as to make it clear why all search for dear objects--husband,
wife, children, wealth, &c.--should be abandoned and the Self only
should be searched for. This explanation is as follows. After having
stated that wealth, and so on, are no means to obtain immortality which
consists in permanent absolute bliss, the text declares that the
pleasant experiences which we derive from wealth, husband, wife, &c..
and which are not of a permanent nature and always alloyed with a great
deal of pain, are caused not by wealth, husband, wife, &c., themselves,
but rather by the highest Self whose nature is absolute bliss. He
therefore who being himself of the nature of perfect bliss causes other
beings and things also to be the abodes of partial bliss, he--the
highest Self--is to be constituted the object of knowledge. The clauses,
'not for the wish of the husband a husband is dear,' &c., therefore must
be understood as follows--a husband, a wife, a son, &c., are not dear to
us in consequence of a wish or purpose on their part, 'may I, for my own
end or advantage be dear to him,' but they are dear to us for the wish
of the Self, i.e. to the end that there may be accomplished the desire
of the highest Self--which desire aims at the devotee obtaining what is
dear to him. For the highest Self pleased with the works of his devotees
imparts to different things such dearness, i.e. joy-giving quality as
corresponds to those works, that 'dearness' being bound in each case to
a definite place, time, nature and degree. This is in accordance with
the scriptural text, 'For he alone bestows bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7).
Things are not dear, or the contrary, to us by themselves, but only in
so far as the highest Self makes them such. Compare the text, 'The same
thing which erst gave us delight later on becomes the source of grief;
and what was the cause of wrath afterwards tends to peace. Hence there
is nothing that in itself is of the nature either of pleasure or of pain.'

But, another view of the meaning of the text is proposed, even if the
Self in the clause 'for the desire of the Self' were accepted as
denoting the individual Self, yet the clause 'the Self must be seen'
would refer to the highest Self only. For in that case also the sense
would be as follows--because the possession of husband, wife, and other
so-called dear things is aimed at by a person to whom they are dear, not
with a view of bringing about what is desired by them (viz. husband,
wife, &c.), but rather to the end of bringing about what is desired by
himself; therefore that being which is, to the individual soul,
absolutely and unlimitedly dear, viz. the highest Self, must be
constituted the sole object of cognition, not such objects as husband,
wife, wealth, &c., the nature of which depends on various external
circumstances and the possession of which gives rise either to limited
pleasure alloyed with pain or to mere pain.--But against this we remark
that as, in the section under discussion, the words designating the
individual Self denote the highest Self also, [FOOTNOTE 391:1], the term
'Self' in both clauses, 'For the desire of the Self' and 'The Self is to
be seen,' really refers to one and the same being (viz. the highest
Self), and the interpretation thus agrees with the one given above.--In
order to prove the tenet that words denoting the individual soul at the
same time denote the highest Self, by means of arguments made use of by
other teachers also, the Sūtrakāra sets forth the two following Sūtras.




20. (It is) a mark indicating that the promissory statement is proved;
thus Āsmarathya thinks.

According to the teacher Āsmarathya the circumstance that terms denoting
the individual soul are used to denote Brahman is a mark enabling us to
infer that the promissory declaration according to which through the
knowledge of one thing everything is known is well established. If the
individual soul were not identical with Brahman in so far as it is the
effect of Brahman, then the knowledge of the soul--being something
distinct from Brahman--would not follow from the knowledge of the
highest Self. There are the texts declaring the oneness of Brahman
previous to creation, such as 'the Self only was this in the beginning'
(Ait. Ār. II, 4, 1, 1), and on the other hand those texts which declare
that the souls spring from and again are merged in Brahman; such as 'As
from a blazing fire sparks being like unto fire fly forth a thousandfold,
thus are various beings brought forth from the Imperishable, and return
thither also' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 1). These two sets of texts together make
us apprehend that the souls are one with Brahman in so far as they are
its effects. On this ground a word denoting the individual soul denotes
the highest Self as well.

[FOOTNOTE 391:1. If it be insisted upon that the Self in 'for the desire
of the Self' is the individual Self, we point out that terms denoting
the individual Self at the same time denote the highest Self also. This
tenet of his Rāmānuja considers to be set forth and legitimately proved
in Sūtra 23, while Sūtras 21 and 22 although advocating the right
principle fail to assign valid arguments.]




21. Because (the soul) when it will depart is such; thus Audulomi thinks.

It is wrong to maintain that the designation of Brahman by means of
terms denoting the individual soul is intended to prove the truth of the
declaration that through the knowledge of one thing everything is known,
in so far namely as the soul is an effect of Brahman and hence one with
it. For scriptural texts such as 'the knowing Self is not born, it dies
not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18), declare the soul not to have originated, and it
moreover is admitted that the world is each time created to the end of
the souls undergoing experiences retributive of their former deeds;
otherwise the inequalities of the different parts of the creation would
be inexplicable. If moreover the soul were a mere effect of Brahman, its
Release would consist in a mere return into the substance of Brahman,--
analogous to the refunding into Brahman of the material elements, and
that would mean that the injunction and performance of acts leading to
such Release would be purportless. Release, understood in that sense,
moreover would not be anything beneficial to man; for to be refunded
into Brahman as an earthen vessel is refunded into its own causal
substance, i.e. clay, means nothing else but complete annihilation. How,
under these circumstances, certain texts can speak of the origination
and reabsorption of the individual soul will be set forth later on.--
According to the opinion of the teacher Audulomi, the highest Selfs
being denoted by terms directly denoting the individual soul is due to
the soul's becoming Brahman when departing from the body. This is in
agreement with texts such as the following, 'This serene being having
risen from this body and approached the highest light appears in its
true form' (Kh. Up. VIII, 3, 4); 'As the flowing rivers disappear in the
sea, losing their name and form, thus a wise man freed from name and
form goes to the divine Person who is higher than the high' (Mu. Up. III,
2, 8).




22. On account of (Brahman's) abiding (within the individual soul); thus
Kāsakritsna (holds).

We must object likewise to the view set forth in the preceding Sūtra,
viz. that Brahman is denoted by terms denoting the individual soul
because that soul when departing becomes one with Brahman. For that view
cannot stand the test of being submitted to definite alternatives.--Is
the soul's not being such, i.e. not being Brahman, previously to its
departure from the body, due to its own essential nature or to a
limiting adjunct, and is it in the latter case real or unreal? In the
first case the soul can never become one with Brahman, for if its
separation from Brahman is due to its own essential nature, that
separation can never vanish as long as the essential nature persists.
And should it be said that its essential nature comes to an end together
with its distinction from Brahman, we reply that in that case it
perishes utterly and does not therefore become Brahman. The latter view,
moreover, precludes itself as in no way beneficial to man, and so on.--
If, in the next place, the difference of the soul from Brahman depends
on the presence of real limiting adjuncts, the soul is Brahman even
before its departure from the body, and we therefore cannot reasonably
accept the distinction implied in saying that the soul becomes Brahman
only when it departs. For on this view there exists nothing but Brahman
and its limiting adjuncts, and as those adjuncts cannot introduce
difference into Brahman which is without parts and hence incapable of
difference, the difference resides altogether in the adjuncts, and hence
the soul is Brahman even before its departure from the body.--If, on the
other hand, the difference due to the adjuncts is not real, we ask--what
is it then that becomes Brahman on the departure of the soul?--Brahman
itself whose true nature had previously been obscured by Nescience, its
limiting adjunct!--Not so, we reply. Of Brahman whose true nature
consists in eternal, free, self-luminous intelligence, the true nature
cannot possibly be hidden by Nescience. For by 'hiding' or 'obscuring'
we understand the cessation of the light that belongs to the essential
nature of a thing. Where, therefore, light itself and alone constitutes
the essential nature of a thing, there can either be no obscuration at
all, or if there is such it means complete annihilation of the thing.
Hence Brahman's essential nature being manifest at all times, there
exists no difference on account of which it could be said to _become_
Brahman at the time of the soul's departure; and the distinction
introduced in the last Sūtra ('when departing') thus has no meaning. The
text on which Audulomi relies, 'Having risen from this body,' &c., does
not declare that that which previously was not Brahman becomes such at
the time of departure, but rather that the true nature of the soul which
had previously existed already becomes manifest at the time of departure.
This will be explained under IV, 4, 1.

The theories stated in the two preceding Sūtras thus having been found
untenable, the teacher Kāsakritsna states his own view, to the effect
that words denoting the jīva are applied to Brahman because Brahman
abides as its Self within the individual soul which thus constitutes
Brahman's body. This theory rests on a number of well-known texts,
'Entering into them with this living (individual) soul let me evolve
names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'He who dwelling within the Self,
&c., whose body the Self is,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'He who moves
within the Imperishable, of whom the Imperishable is the body,' &c;
'Entered within, the ruler of beings, the Self of all.' That the term
'jīva' denotes not only the jīva itself, but extends in its denotation
up to the highest Self, we have explained before when discussing the
text, 'Let me evolve names and forms.' On this view of the identity of
the individual and the highest Self consisting in their being related to
each other as body and soul, we can accept in their full and unmutilated
meaning all scriptural texts whatever--whether they proclaim the
perfection and omniscience of the highest Brahman, or teach how the
individual soul steeped in ignorance and misery is to be saved through
meditation on Brahman, or describe the origination and reabsorption of
the world, or aim at showing how the world is identical with Brahman.
For this reason the author of the Sūtras, rejecting other views, accepts
the theory of Kāsakritsna. Returning to the Maitreyī-brāhmana we proceed
to explain the general sense, from the passage previously discussed
onwards. Being questioned by Maitreyī as to the means of immortality,
Yājńavalkya teaches her that this means is given in meditation on the
highest Self ('The Self is to be seen,' &c.). He next indicates in a
general way the nature of the object of meditation ('When the Self is
seen,' &c.), and--availing himself of the similes of the drum, &c.--of
the government over the organs, mind, and so on, which are instrumental
towards meditation. He then explains in detail that the object of
meditation, i.e. the highest Brahman, is the sole cause of the entire
world; and the ruler of the aggregate of organs on which there depends
all activity with regard to the objects of the senses ('As clouds of
smoke proceed,' &c.; 'As the ocean is the home of all the waters'). He,
next, in order to stimulate the effort which leads to immortality, shows
how the highest Self abiding in the form of the individual Self, is of
one uniform character, viz. that of limitless intelligence ('As a lump
of salt,' &c.), and how that same Self characterised by homogeneous
limitless intelligence connects itself in the Samsāra state with the
products of the elements ('a mass of knowledge, it rises from those
elements and again vanishes into them'). He then adds, 'When he has
departed, there is no more knowledge'; meaning that in the state of
Release, where the soul's unlimited essential intelligence is not
contracted in any way, there is none of those specific cognitions by
which the Self identifying itself with the body, the sense-organs, &c.,
views itself as a man or a god, and so on. Next--in the passage, 'For
where there is duality as it were'--he, holding that the view of a
plurality of things not having their Self in Brahman is due to ignorance,
shows that for him who has freed himself from the shackles of ignorance
and recognises this whole world as animated by Brahman, the view of
plurality is dispelled by the recognition of the absence of any
existence apart from Brahman. He then proceeds, 'He by whom he knows all
this, by what means should he know Him?' This means--He, i.e. the
highest Self, which abiding within the individual soul as its true Self
bestows on it the power of knowledge so that the soul knows all this
through the highest Self; by what means should the soul know Him? In
other words, there is no such means of knowledge: the highest Self
cannot be fully understood by the individual soul. 'That Self,' he
continues, 'is to be expressed as--not so, not so!' That means--He, the
highest Lord, different in nature from everything else, whether sentient
or non-sentient, abides within all beings as their Self, and hence is
not touched by the imperfections of what constitutes his body merely. He
then concludes, 'Whereby should he know the Knower? Thus, O Maitreyī,
thou hast been instructed. Thus far goes Immortality'; the purport of
these words being--By what means, apart from the meditation described,
should man know Him who is different in nature from all other beings,
who is the sole cause of the entire world, who is the Knower of all, Him
the Supreme Person? It is meditation on Him only which shows the road to
Immortality. It thus appears that the Maitreyī-brāhmana is concerned
with the highest Brahman only; and this confirms the conclusion that
Brahman only, and with it Prakriti as ruled by Brahman, is the cause of
the world.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the connexion of
sentences.'




23. (Brahman is) the material cause on account of this not being in
conflict with the promissory statements and the illustrative instances.

The claims raised by the atheistic Sānkhya having thus been disposed of,
the theistic Sānkhya comes forward as an opponent. It must indeed be
admitted, he says, that the Vedānta-texts teach the cause of the world
to be an all-knowing Lord; for they attribute to that cause thought and
similar characteristics. But at the same time we learn from those same
texts that the material cause of the world is none other than the
Pradhāna; with an all-knowing, unchanging superintending Lord they
connect a Pradhāna, ruled by him, which is non-intelligent and undergoes
changes, and the two together only they represent as the cause of the
world. This view is conveyed by the following texts, 'who is without
parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint' (Svet.
Up. VI, 18); 'This great unborn Self, undecaying, undying' (Bri. Up. IV,
4, 25); 'He knows her who produces all effects, the non-knowing one, the
unborn one, wearing eight forms, the firm one. Ruled by him she is
spread out, and incited and guided by him gives birth to the world for
the benefit of the souls. A cow she is without beginning and end, a
mother producing all beings' (see above, p. 363). That the Lord creates
this world in so far only as guiding Prakriti, the material cause, we
learn from the following text, 'From that the Lord of Māya creates all
this. Know Māya to be Prakriti and the Lord of Māya the great Lord'
(Svet. Up. IV, 9, 10). And similarly Smriti, 'with me as supervisor
Prakriti brings forth the Universe of the movable and the immovable'
(Bha. GĪ. IX, 10). Although, therefore, the Pradhāna is not expressly
stated by Scripture to be the material cause, we must assume that there
is such a Pradhāna and that, superintended by the Lord, it constitutes
the material cause, because otherwise the texts declaring Brahman to be
the cause of the world would not be fully intelligible. For ordinary
experience shows us on all sides that the operative cause and the
material cause are quite distinct: we invariably have on the one side
clay, gold, and other material substances which form the material causes
of pots, ornaments, and so on, and on the other hand, distinct from them,
potters, goldsmiths, and so on, who act as operative causes. And we
further observe that the production of effects invariably requires
several instrumental agencies. The Vedānta-texts therefore cannot
possess the strength to convince us, in open defiance of the two
invariable rules, that the one Brahman is at the same time the material
and the operative cause of the world; and hence we maintain that Brahman
is only the operative but not the material cause, while the material
cause is the Pradhāna guided by Brahman.

This primā facie view the Sūtra combats. Prakriti, i.e. the material
cause, not only the operative cause, is Brahman only; this view being in
harmony with the promissory declaration and the illustrative instances.
The promissory declaration is the one referring to the knowledge of all
things through the knowledge of one, 'Did you ever ask for that
instruction by which that which is not heard becomes heard?' &c. (Ch, Up.
VI, 1, 3). And the illustrative instances are those which set forth the
knowledge of the effect as resulting from the knowledge of the cause,
'As by one lump of clay there is made known all that is made of clay; as
by one nugget of gold, &c.; as by one instrument for paring the nails,'
&c. (Ch. Up. VI, 1, 4). If Brahman were merely the operative cause of the
world, the knowledge of the entire world would not result from the
knowledge of Brahman; not any more than we know the pot when we know the
potter. And thus scriptural declaration and illustrative instances would
be stultified. But if Brahman is the general material cause, then the
knowledge of Brahman implies the knowledge of its effect, i.e. the world,
in the same way as the knowledge of such special material causes as a
lump of clay, a nugget of gold, an instrument for paring the nails,
implies the knowledge of all things made of clay, gold or iron--such as
pots, bracelets, diadems, hatchets, and so on. For an effect is not a
substance different from its cause, but the cause itself which has
passed into a different state. The initial declaration thus being
confirmed by the instances of clay and its products, &c., which stand in
the relation of cause and effect, we conclude that Brahman only is the
material cause of the world. That Scripture teaches the operative and
the material causes to be separate, is not true; it rather teaches the
unity of the two. For in the text, 'Have you asked for that ādesa (above,
and generally, understood to mean "instruction"), by which that which is
not heard becomes heard?' the word 'ādesa' has to be taken to mean _ruler_,
in agreement with the text, 'by the command--or rule--of that
Imperishable sun and moon stand apart' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 9), so that the
passage means, 'Have you asked for that Ruler by whom, when heard and
known, even that which is not heard and known, becomes heard and known?'
This clearly shows the unity of the operative (ruling or supervising)
cause and the material cause; taken in conjunction with the subsequent
declaration of the unity of the cause previous to creation, 'Being only,
this was in the beginning, one only,' and the denial of a further
operative cause implied in the further qualification 'advitīyam,' i.e.
'without a second.'--But how then have we to understand texts such as
the one quoted above (from the Kūlika-Upanishad) which declare Prakriti
to be eternal and the material cause of the world?--Prakriti, we reply,
in such passages denotes Brahman in its causal phase when names and
forms are not yet distinguished. For a principle independent of Brahman
does not exist, as we know from texts such as 'Everything abandons him
who views anything as apart from the Self; and 'But where for him the
Self has become all, whereby should he see whom?' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 6;
15). Consider also the texts, 'All this is Brahman' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 1);
and 'All this has its Self in that' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 7); which declare
that the world whether in its causal or its effected condition has
Brahman for its Self. The relation of the world to Brahman has to be
conceived in agreement with scriptural texts such as 'He who moves
within the earth,' &c., up to 'He who moves within the Imperishable';
and 'He who dwells within the earth,' &c., up to 'He who dwells within
the Self (Bri. Up. III, 7, 3-23). The highest Brahman, having the whole
aggregate of non-sentient and sentient beings for its body, ever is the
Self of all. Sometimes, however, names and forms are not evolved, not
distinguished in Brahman; at other times they are evolved, distinct. In
the latter state Brahman is called an effect and manifold; in the former
it is called one, without a second, the cause. This causal state of
Brahman is meant where the text quoted above speaks of the cow without
beginning and end, giving birth to effects, and so on.--But, the text,
'The great one is merged in the Unevolved, the Unevolved is merged in
the Imperishable,' intimates that the Unevolved originates and again
passes away; and similarly the Mahābhārata says, 'from that there sprung
the Non-evolved comprising the three gunas; the Non-evolved is merged in
the indivisible Person.'--These texts, we reply, present no real
difficulty. For Brahman having non-sentient matter for its body, that
state which consists of the three gunas and is denoted by the term
'Unevolved' is something effected. And the text, 'When there was
darkness, neither day nor night,' states that also in a total pralaya
non-sentient matter having Brahman for its Self continues to exist in a
highly subtle condition. This highly subtle matter stands to Brahman the
cause of the world in the relation of a mode (prakāra), and it is
Brahman viewed as having such a mode that the text from the Kūl.
Upanishad refers to. For this reason also the text, 'the Imperishable is
merged in darkness, darkness becomes one with the highest God,' declares
not that darkness is completely merged and lost in the Divinity but only
that it becomes one with it; what the text wants to intimate is that
state of Brahman in which, having for its mode extremely subtle matter
here called 'Darkness,' it abides without evolving names and forms. The
mantra, 'There was darkness, hidden in darkness,' &c. (Ri. Samh. X, 129,
3), sets forth the same view; and so does Manu (I, 5), 'This universe
existed in the shape of Darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive
marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed as it were
in deep sleep.' And, as to the text, 'from that the Lord of Māya creates
everything,' we shall prove later on the unchangeableness of Brahman,
and explain the scriptural texts asserting it.

As to the contention raised by the Pūrvapakshin that on the basis of
invariable experience it must be held that one and the same principle
cannot be both material and operative cause, and that effects cannot be
brought about by one agency, and that hence the Vedānta-texts can no
more establish the view of Brahman being the sole cause than the command
'sprinkle with fire' will convince us that fire may perform the office
of water; we simply remark that the highest Brahman which totally
differs in nature from all other beings, which is omnipotent and
omniscient, can by itself accomplish everything. The invariable rule of
experience holds good, on the other hand, with regard to clay and
similar materials which are destitute of intelligence and hence
incapable of guiding and supervising; and with regard to potters and
similar agents who do not possess the power of transforming themselves
into manifold products, and cannot directly realise their intentions.--
The conclusion therefore remains that Brahman alone is the material as
well as the operative cause of the Universe.




24. And on account of the statement of reflection.

Brahman must be held to be both causes for that reason also that texts
such as 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth,' and 'It thought,
may I be many, may I grow forth,' declare that the creative Brahman
forms the purpose of its own Self multiplying itself. The text clearly
teaches that creation on Brahman's part is preceded by the purpose 'May
I, and no other than I, become manifold in the shape of various non-
sentient and sentient beings.'




25. And on account of both being directly declared.

The conclusion arrived at above is based not only on scriptural
declaration, illustrative instances and statements of reflection; but in
addition Scripture directly states that Brahman alone is the material as
well as operative cause of the world. 'What was the wood, what the tree
from which they have shaped heaven and earth? You wise ones, search in
your minds, whereon it stood, supporting the worlds.--Brahman was the
wood, Brahman the tree from which they shaped heaven and earth; you wise
ones, I tell you, it stood on Brahman, supporting the worlds.'--Here a
question is asked, suggested by the ordinary worldly view, as to what
was the material and instruments used by Brahman when creating; and the
answer--based on the insight that there is nothing unreasonable in
ascribing all possible powers to Brahman which differs from all other
beings--declares that Brahman itself is the material and the instruments;--
whereby the ordinary view is disposed of.--The next Sūtra supplies a
further reason.




26. On account of (the Self) making itself.

Of Brahman which the text had introduced as intent on creation, 'He
wished, may I be many' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), a subsequent text says, 'That
itself made its Self (II, 7), so that Brahman is represented as the
object as well as the agent in the act of creation. It being the Self
only which here is made many, we understand that the Self is material
cause as well as operative one. The Self with names and forms non-
evolved is agent (cause), the same Self with names and forms evolved is
object (effect). There is thus nothing contrary to reason in one Self
being object as well as agent.

A new doubt here presents itself.--'The True, knowledge, infinite is
Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28);
'Free from sin, free from old age, free from death and grief, free from
hunger and thirst' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1,5); 'Without parts, without action,
tranquil, without fault, without taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'This great
unborn Self, undecaying, undying' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 25)--from all these
texts it appears that Brahman is essentially free from even a shadow of
all the imperfections which afflict all sentient and non-sentient beings,
and has for its only characteristics absolutely supreme bliss and
knowledge. How then is it possible that this Brahman should form the
purpose of becoming, and actually become, manifold, by appearing in the
form of a world comprising various sentient and non-sentient beings--all
of which are the abodes of all kinds of imperfections and afflictions?
To this question the next Sūtra replies.




27. Owing to modification.

This means--owing to the essential nature of modification (parināma).
The modification taught in our system is not such as to introduce
imperfections into the highest Brahman, on the contrary it confers on it
limitless glory. For our teaching as to Brahman's modification is as
follows. Brahman--essentially antagonistic to all evil, of uniform
goodness, differing in nature from all beings other than itself, all-
knowing, endowed with the power of immediately realising all its
purposes, in eternal possession of all it wishes for, supremely blessed--
has for its body the entire universe, with all its sentient and non-
sentient beings--the universe being for it a plaything as it were--and
constitutes the Self of the Universe. Now, when this world which forms
Brahman's body has been gradually reabsorbed into Brahman, each
constituent element being refunded into its immediate cause, so that in
the end there remains only the highly subtle, elementary matter which
Scripture calls Darkness; and when this so-called Darkness itself, by
assuming a form so extremely subtle that it hardly deserves to be called
something separate from Brahman, of which it constitutes the body, has
become one with Brahman; then Brahman invested with this ultra-subtle
body forms the resolve 'May I again possess a world-body constituted by
all sentient and non-sentient beings, distinguished by names and forms
just as in the previous aeon,' and modifies (parināmayati) itself by
gradually evolving the world-body in the inverse order in which
reabsorption had taken place.

All Vedānta-texts teach such modification or change on Brahman's part.
There is, e.g., the text in the Brihad-Āranyaka which declares that the
whole world constitutes the body of Brahman and that Brahman is its Self.
That text teaches that earth, water, fire, sky, air, heaven, sun, the
regions, moon and stars, ether, darkness, light, all beings, breath,
speech, eye, ear, mind, skin, knowledge form the body of Brahman which
abides within them as their Self and Ruler. Thus in the Kānva-text; the
Mādhyandina-text reads 'the Self' instead of 'knowledge'; and adds the
worlds, sacrifices and vedas. The parallel passage in the Subāla-
Upanishad adds to the beings enumerated as constituting Brahman's body
in the Brihad-Āranyaka, buddhi, ahamkāra, the mind (kitta), the Un-
evolved (avyakta), the Imperishable (akshara), and concludes 'He who
moves within death, of whom death is the body, whom death does not know,
he is the inner Self of all, free from all evil, divine, the one god
Nārāyana. The term 'Death' here denotes matter in its extremely subtle
form, which in other texts is called Darkness; as we infer from the
order of enumeration in another passage in the same Upanishad, 'the
Unevolved is merged in the Imperishable, the Imperishable in Darkness.'
That this Darkness is called 'Death' is due to the fact that it obscures
the understanding of all souls and thus is harmful to them. The full
text in the Subāla-Up. declaring the successive absorption of all the
beings forming Brahman's body is as follows, 'The earth is merged in
water, water in fire, fire in air, air in the ether, the ether in the
sense-organs, the sense-organs in the tanmātras, the tanmātras in the
gross elements, the gross elements in the great principle, the great
principle in the Unevolved, the Unevolved in the Imperishable; the
Imperishable is merged in Darkness; Darkness becomes one with the
highest Divinity.' That even in the state of non-separation (to which
the texts refer as 'becoming one') non-sentient matter as well as
sentient beings, together with the impressions of their former deeds,
persists in an extremely subtle form, will be shown under II, 1, 35. We
have thus a Brahman all-knowing, of the nature of supreme bliss and so
on, one and without a second, having for its body all sentient and non-
sentient beings abiding in an extremely subtle condition and having
become 'one' with the Supreme Self in so far as they cannot be
designated as something separate from him; and of this Brahman Scripture
records that it forms the resolve of becoming many--in so far, namely,
as investing itself with a body consisting of all sentient and non-
sentient beings in their gross, manifest state which admits of
distinctions of name and form--and thereupon modifies (parināma) itself
into the form of the world. This is distinctly indicated in the
Taittirīya-Upanishad, where Brahman is at first described as 'The True,
knowledge, infinite,' as 'the Self of bliss which is different from the
Self of Understanding,' as 'he who bestows bliss'; and where the text
further on says, 'He desired, may I be many, may I grow forth. He
brooded over himself, and having thus brooded he sent forth all whatever
there is. Having sent forth he entered it. Having entered it he became
sat and tyat, defined and undefined, supported and non-supported,
knowledge and non-knowledge, real and unreal.' The 'brooding' referred
to in this text denotes knowing, viz. reflection on the shape and
character of the previous world which Brahman is about to reproduce.
Compare the text 'whose brooding consists of knowledge' (Mu. Up. I, 1,
9). The meaning therefore is that Brahman, having an inward intuition of
the characteristics of the former world, creates the new world on the
same pattern. That Brahman in all kalpas again and again creates the
same world is generally known from Sruti and Smriti. Cp. 'As the creator
formerly made sun and moon, and sky and earth, and the atmosphere and
the heavenly world,' and 'whatever various signs of the seasons are seen
in succession, the same appear again and again in successive yugas and
kalpas.'

The sense of the Taittirīya-text therefore is as follows. The highest
Self, which in itself is of the nature of unlimited knowledge and bliss,
has for its body all sentient and non-sentient beings--instruments of
sport for him as it were--in so subtle a form that they may be called
non-existing; and as they are his body he may be said to consist of them
(tan-maya). Then desirous of providing himself with an infinity of
playthings of all kinds he, by a series of steps beginning with Prakriti
and the aggregate of souls and leading down to the elements in their
gross state, so modifies himself as to have those elements for his body--
when he is said to consist of them--and thus appears in the form of our
world containing what the text denotes as sat and tyat, i.e. all
intelligent and non-intelligent things, from gods down to plants and
stones. When the text says that the Self having entered into it became
sat and tyat, the meaning is that the highest Self, which in its causal
state had been the universal Self, abides, in its effected state also,
as the Self of the different substances undergoing changes and thus
becomes this and that. While the highest Self thus undergoes a change--
in the form of a world comprising the whole aggregate of sentient and
non-sentient beings--all imperfection and suffering are limited to the
sentient beings constituting part of its body, and all change is
restricted to the non-sentient things which constitute another part. The
highest Self is _effected_ in that sense only that it is the ruling
principle, and hence the Self, of matter and souls in their gross or
evolved state; but just on account of being this, viz. their inner Ruler
and Self, it is in no way touched by their imperfections and changes.
Consisting of unlimited knowledge and bliss he for ever abides in his
uniform nature, engaged in the sport of making this world go round. This
is the purport of the clause 'it became the real and the unreal':
although undergoing a change into the multiplicity of actual sentient
and non-sentient things, Brahman at the same time was the Real, i.e.
that which is free from all shadow of imperfection, consisting of
nothing but pure knowledge and bliss. That all beings, sentient and non-
sentient, and whether in their non-evolved or evolved states, are mere
playthings of Brahman, and that the creation and reabsorption of the
world are only his sport, this has been expressly declared by Dvaipāyana,
Parāsara and other Rishis,'Know that all transitory beings, from the
Unevolved down to individual things, are a mere play of Hari'; 'View his
action like that of a playful child,' &c. The Sūtrakāra will distinctly
enounce the same view in II, 1, 33. With a similar view the text 'from
that the Lord of Māya sends forth all this; and in that the other is
bound by Māyā' (Svet. Up. IV, 9), refers to Prakriti and soul, which
together constitute the body of Brahman, as things different from
Brahman, although then, i.e. at the time of a pralaya, they are one with
Brahman in so far as their extreme subtlety does not admit of their
being conceived as separate; this it does to the end of suggesting that
even when Brahman undergoes the change into the shape of this world, all
changes exclusively belong to non-sentient matter which is a mode of
Brahman, and all imperfections and sufferings to the individual souls
which also are modes of Brahman. The text has to be viewed as agreeing
in meaning with 'that Self made itself.' Of a similar purport is the
account given in Manu, 'He being desirous to send forth from his body
beings of many kinds, first with a thought created the waters and placed
his seed in them' (I, 8).

It is in this way that room is found for those texts also which proclaim
Brahman to be free from all imperfection and all change. It thus remains
a settled conclusion that Brahman by itself constitutes the material as
well as the operative cause of the world.




28. And because it is called the womb.

Brahman is the material as well as the operative cause of the world for
that reason also that certain texts call it the womb, 'the maker, the
Lord, the Person, Brahman, the womb' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3); 'that which
the wise regard as the womb of all beings' (I, 1, 6). And that 'womb'
means as much as material cause, appears from the complementary passage
'As a spider sends forth and draws in its threads' (I, 1, 7)--




29. Herewith all (texts) are explained, explained.

Hereby, i.e. by the whole array of arguments set forth in the four pādas
of the first adhyāya; all those particular passages of the Vedānta-texts
which give instruction as to the cause of the world, are explained as
meaning to set forth a Brahman all-wise, all-powerful, different in
nature from all beings intelligent and non-intelligent. The repetition
of the word 'explained' is meant to indicate the termination of the
adhyāya.




SECOND ADHYĀYA

FIRST PĀDA.

1. If it be said that there would result the fault of there being no
room for (certain) Smritis: (we reply) 'no,' because there would result
the fault of want of room for other Smritis.

The first adhyāya has established the truth that what the Vedānta-texts
teach is a Supreme Brahman, which is something different as well from
non-sentient matter known through the ordinary means of proof, viz.
Perception and so on, as from the intelligent souls whether connected
with or separated from matter; which is free from even a shadow of
imperfection of any kind; which is an ocean as it were of auspicious
qualities and so on; which is the sole cause of the entire Universe;
which constitutes the inner Self of all things. The second adhyāya is
now begun for the purpose of proving that the view thus set forth cannot
be impugned by whatever arguments may possibly be brought forward. The
Sūtrakāra at first turns against those who maintain that the Vedanta-
texts do not establish the view indicated above, on the ground of that
view being contradicted by the Smriti of Kapila, i. e. the Sānkhya-
system.

But how can it be maintained at all that Scripture does not set forth a
certain view because thereby it would enter into conflict with Smriti?
For that Smriti if contradicted by Scripture is to be held of no account,
is already settled in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā ('But where there is
contradiction Smriti is not to be regarded,' I, 3, 3).--Where, we reply,
a matter can be definitely settled on the basis of Scripture--as e.g. in
the case of the Vedic injunction, 'he is to sing, after having touched
the Udumbara branch' (which clearly contradicts the Smriti injunction
that the whole branch is to be covered up)--Smriti indeed need not be
regarded. But the topic with which the Vedānta-texts are concerned is
hard to understand, and hence, when a conflict arises between those
texts and a Smriti propounded by some great Rishi, the matter does not
admit of immediate decisive settlement: it is not therefore unreasonable
to undertake to prove by Smriti that Scripture does not set forth a
certain doctrine. That is to say--we possess a Smriti composed with a
view to teach men the nature and means of supreme happiness, by the
great Rishi Kapila to whom Scripture, Smriti, Itihāsa and Purāna alike
refer as a person worthy of all respect (compare e. g. 'the Rishi Kapila,'
Svet. Up. V, 2), and who moreover (unlike Brihaspati and other Smriti--
writers) fully acknowledges the validity of all the means of earthly
happiness which are set forth in the karmakānda of the Veda, such as the
daily oblations to the sacred fires, the New and Full Moon offerings and
the great Soma sacrifices. Now, as men having only an imperfect
knowledge of the Veda, and moreover naturally slow-minded, can hardly
ascertain the sense of the Vedānta-texts without the assistance of such
a Smriti, and as to be satisfied with that sense of the Vedānta which
discloses itself on a mere superficial study of the text would imply the
admission that the whole Sānkhya Smriti, although composed by an able
and trustworthy person, really is useless; we see ourselves driven to
acknowledge that the doctrine of the Vedānta-texts cannot differ from
the one established by the Sānkhyas. Nor must you object that to do so
would force on us another unacceptable conclusion, viz. that those
Smritis, that of Manu e.g., which maintain Brahman to be the universal
cause, are destitute of authority; for Manu and similar works inculcate
practical religious duty and thus have at any rate the uncontested
function of supporting the teaching of the karmakānda of the Veda. The
Sānkhya Smriti, on the other hand, is entirely devoted to the setting
forth of theoretical truth (not of practical duty), and if it is not
accepted in that quality, it is of no use whatsoever.--On this ground
the Sūtra sets forth the primā facie view, 'If it be said that there
results the fault of there being no room for certain Smritis.'

The same Sūtra replies 'no; because there would result the fault of want
of room for other Smritis.' For other Smritis, that of Manu e.g., teach
that Brahman is the universal cause. Thus Manu says, 'This (world)
existed in the shape of darkness, and so on. Then the divine Self
existent, indiscernible but making discernible all this, the great
elements and the rest, appeared with irresistible power, dispelling the
darkness. He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body,
first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them'
(Manu I, 5-8). And the Bhagavad-gitā, 'I am the origin and the
dissolution of the whole Universe' (VII, 6). 'I am the origin of all;
everything proceeds from me' (X, 8). Similarly, in the Mahābhārata, to
the question 'Whence was created this whole world with its movable and
immovable beings?' the answer is given, 'Nārāyana assumes the form of
the world, he the infinite, eternal one'; and 'from him there originates
the Unevolved consisting of the three gunas'; and 'the Unevolved is
merged in the non-acting Person.' And Parāsara says, 'From Vishnu there
sprang the world and in him it abides; he makes this world persist and
he rules it--he is the world.' Thus also Āpastamba, 'The living beings
are the dwelling of him who lies in all caves, who is not killed, who is
spotless'; and 'From him spring all bodies; he is the primary cause, he
is eternal, permanent.' (Dharmasū. I, 8, 22, 4; 23, 2).--If the question
as to the meaning of the Vedānta-texts were to be settled by means of
Kapila's Smriti, we should have to accept the extremely undesirable
conclusion that all the Smritis quoted are of no authority. It is true
that the Vedānta-texts are concerned with theoretical truth lying
outside the sphere of Perception and the other means of knowledge, and
that hence students possessing only a limited knowledge of the Veda
require some help in order fully to make out the meaning of the Vedānta.
But what must be avoided in this case is to give any opening for the
conclusion that the very numerous Smritis which closely follow the
doctrine of the Vedānta, are composed by the most competent and
trustworthy persons and aim at supporting that doctrine, are irrelevant;
and it is for this reason that Kapila's Smriti which contains a doctrine
opposed to Scripture must be disregarded. The support required is
elucidation of the sense conveyed by Scripture, and this clearly cannot
be effected by means of a Smriti contradicting Scripture. Nor is it of
any avail to plead, as the Pūrvapakshin does, that Manu and other
Smritis of the same kind fulfil in any case the function of elucidating
the acts of religious duty enjoined in the karmakānda. For if they
enjoin acts of religious duty as means to win the favour of the Supreme
Person but do not impress upon us the idea of that Supreme Person
himself who is to be pleased by those acts, they are also not capable of
impressing upon us the idea of those acts themselves. That it is the
character of all religious acts to win the favour of the Supreme Spirit,
Smriti distinctly declares, 'Man attains to perfection by worshipping
with his proper action Him from whom all Beings proceed; and by whom all
this is stretched out' (Bha. Gī. XVIII, 46); 'Let a man meditate on
Nārāyana, the divine one, at all works, such as bathing and the like; he
will then reach the world of Brahman and not return hither' (Daksha-
smriti); and 'Those men with whom, intent on their duties, thou art
pleased, O Lord, they pass beyond all this Māya and find Release for
their souls' (Vi. Pu.). Nor can it be said that Manu and similar Smritis
have a function in so far as setting forth works (not aiming at final
Release but) bringing about certain results included in transmigratory
existence, whether here on earth or in a heavenly world; for the
essential character of those works also is to please the highest Person.
As is said in the Bhagavad-gītā (IX, 23, 24); 'Even they who devoted to
other gods worship them with faith, worship me, against ordinance. For I
am the enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices; but they know me not in
truth and hence they fall,' and 'Thou art ever worshipped by me with
sacrifices; thou alone, bearing the form of pitris and of gods, enjoyest
all the offerings made to either.' Nor finally can we admit the
contention that it is rational to interpret the Vedįnta-texts in
accordance with Kapila's Smriti because Kapila, in the Svetāsvatara text,
is referred to as a competent person. For from this it would follow that,
as Brihaspati is, in Sruti and Smriti, mentioned as a pattern of
consummate wisdom, Scripture should be interpreted in agreement with the
openly materialistic and atheistic Smriti composed by that authority.
But, it may here be said, the Vedānta-texts should after all be
interpreted in agreement with Kapila's Smriti, for the reason that
Kapila had through the power of his concentrated meditation (yoga)
arrived at an insight into truth.--To this objection the next Sūtra
replies.




2. And on account of the non-perception (of truth on the part) of others.

The 'and' in the Sūtra has the force of 'but,' being meant to dispel the
doubt raised. There are many other authors of Smritis, such as Manu, who
through the power of their meditation had attained insight into the
highest truth, and of whom it is known from Scripture that the purport
of their teaching was a salutary medicine to the whole world ('whatever
Manu said that was medicine'). Now, as these Rishis did not see truth in
the way of Kapila, we conclude that Kapila's view, which contradicts
Scripture, is founded on error, and cannot therefore be used to modify
the sense of the Vedānta-texts.--Here finishes the adhikarana treating
of 'Smriti.'




3. Hereby the Yoga is refuted.

By the above refutation of Kapila's Smriti the Yoga-smriti also is
refuted.--But a question arises, What further doubt arises here with
regard to the Yoga system, so as to render needful the formal extension
to the Yoga of the arguments previously set forth against the Sānkhya?--
It might appear, we reply, that the Vedānta should be supported by the
Yoga-smriti, firstly, because the latter admits the existence of a Lord;
secondly, because the Vedānta-texts mention Yoga as a means to bring
about final Release; and thirdly, because Hiranyagarbha, who proclaimed
the Yoga-smriti is qualified for the promulgation of all Vedānta-texts.--
But these arguments refute themselves as follows. In the first place the
Yoga holds the Pradhāna, which is independent of Brahman, to be the
general material cause, and hence the Lord acknowledged by it is a mere
operative cause. In the second place the nature of meditation, in which
Yoga consists, is determined by the nature of the object of meditation,
and as of its two objects, viz. the soul and the Lord, the former does
not have its Self in Brahman, and the latter is neither the cause of the
world nor endowed with the other auspicious qualities (which belong to
Brahman), the Yoga is not of Vedic character. And as to the third point,
Hiranyagarbha himself is only an individual soul, and hence liable to be
overpowered by the inferior gunas, i.e. passion and darkness; and hence
the Yoga-smriti is founded on error, no less than the Purānas,
promulgated by him, which are founded on rajas and tamas. The Yoga
cannot, therefore, be used for the support of the Vedānta.--Here
finishes the adhikarana of 'the refutation of the Yoga.'




4. Not, on account of the difference of character of that; and its being
such (appears) from Scripture.

The same opponent who laid stress on the conflict between Scripture and
Smriti now again comes forward, relying this time (not on Smriti but) on
simple reasoning. Your doctrine, he says, as to the world being an
effect of Brahman which you attempted to prove by a refutation of the
Sānkhya Smriti shows itself to be irrational for the following reason.
Perception and the other means of knowledge show this world with all its
sentient and non-sentient beings to be of a non-intelligent and impure
nature, to possess none of the qualities of the Lord, and to have pain
for its very essence; and such a world totally differs in nature from
the Brahman, postulated by you, which is said to be all-knowing, of
supreme lordly power, antagonistic to all evil, enjoying unbroken
uniform blessedness. This difference in character of the world from
Brahman is, moreover, not only known through Perception, and so on, but
is seen to be directly stated in Scripture itself; compare 'Knowledge
and non-knowledge' (Taitt. Up. II, 6, 1); 'Thus are these objects placed
on the subjects, and the subjects on the prāna' (Kau. Up. III, 9); 'On
the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered by his own
impotence' (Svet. Up. IV, 7); 'The soul not being a Lord is bound
because he has to enjoy' (Svet. Up. I, 8); and so on; all which texts
refer to the effect, i.e. the world as being non-intelligent, of the
essence of pain, and so on. The general rule is that an effect is non-
different in character from its cause; as e.g. pots and bracelets are
non-different in character from their material causes--clay and gold.
The world cannot, therefore, be the effect of Brahman from which it
differs in character, and we hence conclude that, in agreement with the
Sānkhya Smriti, the Pradhāna which resembles the actual world in
character must be assumed to be the general cause. Scripture, although
not dependent on anything else and concerned with super-sensuous objects,
must all the same come to terms with ratiocination (tarka); for all the
different means of knowledge can in many cases help us to arrive at a
decisive conclusion, only if they are supported by ratiocination. For by
tarka we understand that kind of knowledge (intellectual activity) which
in the case of any given matter, by means of an investigation either
into the essential nature of that matter or into collateral (auxiliary)
factors, determines what possesses proving power, and what are the
special details of the matter under consideration: this kind of
cognitional activity is also called ūha. All means of knowledge equally
stand in need of tarka; Scripture however, the authoritative character
of which specially depends on expectancy (ākānkshā), proximity
(sannidhi), and compatibility (yogyatā), throughout requires to be
assisted by tarka. In accordance with this Manu says,'He who
investigates by means of reasoning, he only knows religious duty, and
none other.' It is with a view to such confirmation of the sense of
Scripture by means of Reasoning that the texts declare that certain
topics such as the Self must be 'reflected on' (mantavya).--Now here it
might possibly be said that as Brahman is ascertained from Scripture to
be the sole cause of the world, it must be admitted that intelligence
exists in the world also, which is an effect of Brahman. In the same way
as the consciousness of an intelligent being is not perceived when it is
in the states of deep sleep, swoon, &c., so the intelligent nature of
jars and the like also is not observed, although it really exists; and
it is this very difference of manifestation and non-manifestation of
intelligence on which the distinction of intelligent and non-intelligent
beings depends.--But to this we reply that permanent non-perception of
intelligence proves its non-existence. This consideration also refutes
the hypothesis of things commonly called non-intelligent possessing the
power, or potentiality, of consciousness. For if you maintain that a
thing possesses the power of producing an effect while yet that effect
is never and nowhere _seen_ to be produced by it, you may as well
proclaim at a meeting of sons of barren women that their mothers possess
eminent procreative power! Moreover, to prove at first from the Vedānta-
texts that Brahman is the material cause of the world, and from this
that pots and the like possess potential consciousness, and therefrom
the existence of non-manifested consciousness; and then, on the other
hand, to start from the last principle as proved and to deduce therefrom
that the Vedānta-texts prove Brahman to be the material cause of the
world, is simply to argue in a circle; for that the relation of cause
and effect should exist between things different in character is just
what cannot be proved.--What sameness of character, again, of causal
substance and effects, have you in mind when you maintain that from the
absence of such sameness it follows that Brahman cannot be proved to be
the material cause of the world? It cannot be complete sameness of all
attributes, because in that case the relation of cause and effect (which
after all requires _some_ difference) could not be established. For we
do not observe that in pots and jars which are fashioned out of a lump
of clay there persists the quality of 'being a lump' which belongs to
the causal substance. And should you say that it suffices that there
should be equality in some or any attribute, we point out that such is
actually the case with regard to Brahman and the world, both of which
have the attribute of 'existence' and others. The true state of the case
rather is as follows. There is equality of nature between an effect and
a cause, in that sense that those essential characteristics by which the
causal substance distinguishes itself from other things persist in its
effects also: those characteristic features, e.g., which distinguish
gold from clay and other materials, persist also in things made of gold-
bracelets and the like. But applying this consideration to Brahman and
the world we find that Brahman's essential nature is to be antagonistic
to all evil, and to consist of knowledge, bliss and power, while the
world's essential nature is to be the opposite of all this. Brahman
cannot, therefore, be the material cause of the world.

But, it may be objected, we observe that even things of different
essential characteristics stand to each other in the relation of cause
and effect. From man, e.g., who is a sentient being, there spring nails,
teeth, and hair, which are non-sentient things; the sentient scorpion
springs from non-sentient dung; and non-sentient threads proceed from
the sentient spider.--This objection, we reply, is not valid; for in the
instances quoted the relation of cause and effect rests on the non-
sentient elements only (i.e. it is only the non-sentient matter of the
body which produces nails, &c.).

But, a further objection is raised, Scripture itself declares in many
places that things generally held to be non-sentient really possess
intelligence; compare 'to him the earth said'; 'the water desired'; 'the
prānas quarrelling among themselves as to their relative pre-eminence
went to Brahman.' And the writers of the Purānas ako attribute
consciousness to rivers, hills, the sea, and so on. Hence there is after
all no essential difference in nature between sentient and so-called non-
sentient beings.--To this objection the Pūrvapakshin replies in the next
Sūtra.




5. But (there is) denotation of the superintending (deities), on account
of distinction and entering.

The word 'but' is meant to set aside the objection started. In texts
such as 'to him the earth said,' the terms 'earth' and so on, denote the
divinities presiding over earth and the rest.--How is this known?--'
Through distinction and connexion.' For earth and so on are denoted by
the distinctive term 'divinities'; so e.g. 'Let me enter into those
three divinities' (Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2), where fire, water, and earth are
called divinities; and Kau. Up. II, 14, 'All divinities contending with
each other as to pre-eminence,' and 'all these divinities having
recognised pre-eminence in prāna.' The 'entering' of the Sūtra refers to
Ait. Ar. II, 4, 2, 4, 'Agni having become speech entered into the mouth;
Aditya having become sight entered into the eyes,' &c., where the text
declares that Agni and other divine beings entered into the sense-organs
as their superintendents.

We therefore adhere to our conclusion that the world, being non-
intelligent and hence essentially different in nature from Brahman,
cannot be the effect of Brahman; and that therefore, in agreement with
Smriti confirmed by reasoning, the Vedānta-texts must be held to teach
that the Pradhāna is the universal material cause. This primā facie view
is met by the following Sūtra.




6. But it is seen.

The 'but' indicates the change of view (introduced in the present Sūtra).
The assertion that Brahman cannot be the material cause of the world
because the latter differs from it in essential nature, is unfounded;
since it is a matter of observation that even things of different nature
stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect. For it is
observed that from honey and similar substances there originate worms
and other little animals.--But it has been said above that in those
cases there is sameness of nature, in so far as the relation of cause
and effect holds good only between the non-intelligent elements in both!--
This assertion was indeed made, but it does not suffice to prove that
equality of character between cause and effect which you have in view.
For, being apprehensive that from the demand of equality of character in
some point or other only it would follow that, as all things have
certain characteristics in common, anything might originate from
anything, you have declared that the equality of character necessary for
the relation of cause and effect is constituted by the persistence, in
the effect, of those characteristic points which differentiate the cause
from other things. But it is evident that this restrictive rule does not
hold good in the case of the origination of worms and the like from
honey and so on; and hence it is not unreasonable to assume that the
world also, although differing in character from Brahman, may originate
from the latter. For in the case of worms originating from honey,
scorpions from dung, &c., we do _not_ observe--what indeed we _do_
observe in certain other cases, as of pots made of clay, ornaments made
of gold--that the special characteristics distinguishing the causal
substance from other things persist in the effects also.




7. If it be said that (the effect is) non-existing; we say no, there
being a mere denial.

But, an objection is raised, if Brahman, the cause, differs in nature
from the effect, viz. the world, this means that cause and effect are
separate things and that hence the effect does not exist in the cause, i.
e. Brahman; and this again implies that the world originates from what
has no existence!--Not so, we reply. For what the preceding Sūtra has
laid down is merely the denial of an absolute rule demanding that cause
and effect should be of the same nature; it was not asserted that the
effect is a thing altogether different and separate from the cause. We
by no means abandon our tenet that Brahman the cause modifies itself so
as to assume the form of a world differing from it in character. For
such is the case with the honey and the worms also. There is difference
of characteristics, but--as in the case of gold and golden bracelets--
there is oneness of substance.--An objection is raised.




8. On account of such consequences in reabsorption (the Vedānta-texts
would be) inappropriate.

The term 'reabsorption' here stands as an instance of all the states of
Brahman, reabsorption, creation, and so on--among which it is the first
as appears from the texts giving instruction about those several states
'Being only was this in the beginning'; 'The Self only was this in the
beginning.' If we accept the doctrine of the oneness of substance of
cause and effect, then, absorption, creation, &c. of the world all being
in Brahman, the different states of the world would connect themselves
with Brahman, and the latter would thus be affected by all the
imperfections of its effect; in the same way as all the attributes of
the bracelet are present in the gold also. And the undesirable
consequence of this would be that contradictory attributes as predicated
in different Vedānta-texts would have to be attributed to one and the
same substance; cp. 'He who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'Free
from sin, free from old age and death' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5); 'Of him
there is known neither cause nor effect' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'Of these
two one eats the sweet fruit' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'The Self that is not a
Lord is bound because he has to enjoy' (Svet. Up. I, 8); 'On account of
his impotence he laments, bewildered' (Svet. Up. IV, 7).--Nor can we
accept the explanation that, as Brahman in its causal as well as its
effected state has all sentient and non-sentient beings for its body;
and as all imperfections inhere in that body only, they do not touch
Brahman in either its causal or effected state. For it is not possible
that the world and Brahman should stand to each other in the relation of
effect and cause, and if it were possible, the imperfections due to
connexion with a body would necessarily cling to Brahman. It is not, we
say, possible that the intelligent and non-intelligent beings together
should constitute the body of Brahman. For a body is a particular
aggregate of earth and the other elements, depending for its subsistence
on vital breath with its five modifications, and serving as an abode to
the sense-organs which mediate the experiences of pleasure and pain
retributive of former works: such is in Vedic and worldly speech the
sense connected with the term 'body.' But numerous Vedic texts--'Free
from sin, from old age and death' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1); 'Without eating the
other one looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'Grasping without hands, hasting
without feet, he sees without eyes, he hears without ears' (Svet. Up.
III, 19); 'Without breath, without mind' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2)--declare
that the highest Self is free from karman and the enjoyment of its
fruits, is not capable of enjoyment dependent on sense-organs, and has
no life dependent on breath: whence it follows that he cannot have a
body constituted by all the non-sentient and sentient beings. Nor can
either non-sentient beings in their individual forms such as grass,
trees, &c., or the aggregate of all the elements in their subtle state
be viewed as the abode of sense-activity (without which they cannot
constitute a body); nor are the elements in their subtle state combined
into earth and the other gross elements (which again would be required
for a body). And sentient beings which consist of mere intelligence are
of course incapable of all this, and hence even less fit to constitute a
body. Nor may it be said that to have a body merely means to be the
abode of fruition, and that Brahman may possess a body in this latter
sense; for there are abodes of fruition, such as palaces and the like,
which are not considered to be bodies. Nor will it avail, narrowing the
last definition, to say that that only is an abode of enjoyment directly
abiding in which a being enjoys pain and pleasure; for if a soul enters
a body other than its own, that body is indeed the abode in which it
enjoys the pains and pleasures due to such entering, but is not admitted
to be in the proper sense of the word the _body_ of the soul thus
entered. In the case of the Lord, on the other hand, who is in the
enjoyment of self-established supreme bliss, it can in no way be
maintained that he must be joined to a body, consisting of all sentient
and non-sentient beings, for the purpose of enjoyment.--That view also
according to which a 'body' means no more than a _means_ of enjoyment is
refuted hereby.

You will now possibly try another definition, viz. that the body of a
being is constituted by that, the nature, subsistence and activity of
which depend on the will of that being, and that hence a body may be
ascribed to the Lord in so far as the essential nature, subsistence, and
activity of all depend on him.--But this also is objectionable; since in
the first place it is not a fact that the nature of a body depends on
the will of the intelligent soul joined with it; since, further, an
injured body does not obey in its movements the will of its possessor;
and since the persistence of a dead body does not depend on the soul
that tenanted it. Dancing puppets and the like, on the other hand, are
things the nature, subsistence, and motions of which depend on the will
of intelligent beings, but we do not on that account consider them to be
the bodies of those beings. As, moreover, the nature of an eternal
intelligent soul does not depend on the will of the Lord, it cannot be
its body under the present definition.--Nor again can it be said that
the body of a being is constituted by that which is exclusively ruled
and supported by that being and stands towards it in an exclusive
subservient relation (sesha); for this definition would include actions
also. And finally it is a fact that several texts definitely declare
that the Lord is without a body, 'Without hands and feet he grasps and
hastens' &c.

As thus the relation of embodied being and body cannot subsist between
Brahman and the world, and as if it did subsist, all the imperfections
of the world would cling to Brahman; the Vedānta--texts are wrong in
teaching that Brahman is the material cause of the world.

To this primā facie view the next Sūtra replies.




9. Not so; as there are parallel instances.

The teaching of the Vedānta-texts is not inappropriate, since there are
instances of good and bad qualities being separate in the case of one
thing connected with two different states. The 'but' in the Sūtra
indicates the impossibility of Brahman being connected with even a
shadow of what is evil. The meaning is as follows. As Brahman has all
sentient and non-sentient things for its body, and constitutes the Self
of that body, there is nothing contrary to reason in Brahman being
connected with two states, a causal and an effected one, the essential
characteristics of which are expansion on the one hand and contraction
on the other; for this expansion and contraction belong (not to Brahman
itself, but) to the sentient and non-sentient beings. The imperfections
adhering to the body do not affect Brahman, and the good qualities
belonging to the Self do not extend to the body; in the same way as
youth, childhood, and old age, which are attributes of embodied beings,
such as gods or men, belong to the body only, not to the embodied Self;
while knowledge, pleasure and so on belong to the conscious Self only,
not to the body. On this understanding there is no objection to
expressions such as 'he is born as a god or as a man' and 'the same
person is a child, and then a youth, and then an old man' That the
character of a god or man belongs to the individual soul only in so far
as it has a body, will be shown under III, 1, 1.

The assertion made by the Pūrvapakshin as to the impossibility of the
world, comprising matter and souls and being either in its subtle or its
gross condition, standing to Brahman in the relation of a body, we
declare to be the vain outcome of altogether vicious reasoning springing
from the idle fancies of persons who have never fully considered the
meaning of the whole body of Vedānta-texts as supported by legitimate
argumentation. For as a matter of fact all Vedānta-texts distinctly
declare that the entire world, subtle or gross, material or spiritual,
stands to the highest Self in the relation of a body. Compare e.g.the
antaryāmin-brāhmana, in the Kānva as well as the Mādhyandina-text, where
it is said first of non-sentient things ('he who dwells within the earth,
whose body the earth is' &c.), and afterwards separately of the
intelligent soul ('he who dwells in understanding,' according to the
Kānvas; 'he who dwells within the Self,' according to the Mādhyandinas)
that they constitute the body of the highest Self. Similarly the Subāla-
Upanishad declares that matter and souls in all their states constitute
the body of the highest Self ('He who dwells within the earth' &c.), and
concludes by saying that that Self is the soul of all those beings ('He
is the inner Self of all' &c.). Similarly Smriti, 'The whole world is
thy body'; 'Water is the body of Vishnu'; 'All this is the body of Hari';
'All these things are his body'; 'He having reflected sent forth from
his body'--where the 'body' means the elements in their subtle state. In
ordinary language the word 'body' is not, like words such as _jar_,
limited in its denotation to things of one definite make or character,
but is observed to be applied directly (not only secondarily or
metaphorically) to things of altogether different make and
characteristics--such as worms, insects, moths, snakes, men, four-footed
animals, and so on. We must therefore aim at giving a definition of the
word that is in agreement with general use. The definitions given by the
Pūrvapakshin--'a body is that which causes the enjoyment of the fruit of
actions' &c.--do not fulfil this requirement; for they do not take in
such things as earth and the like which the texts declare to be the body
of the Lord. And further they do not take in those bodily forms which
the Lord assumes according to his wish, nor the bodily forms released
souls may assume, according to 'He is one' &c. (Ch. Up. VII, 36, 2); for
none of those embodiments subserve the fruition of the results of
actions. And further, the bodily forms which the Supreme Person assumes
at wish are not special combinations of earth and the other elements;
for Smriti says, 'The body of that highest Self is not made from a
combination of the elements.' It thus appears that it is also too narrow
a definition to say that a body is a combination of the different
elements. Again, to say that a body is that, the life of which depends
on the vital breath with its five modifications is also too narrow, viz
in respect of plants; for although vital air is present in plants, it
does not in them support the body by appearing in five special forms.
Nor again does it answer to define a body as either the abode of the
sense-organs or as the cause of pleasure and pain; for neither of these
definitions takes in the bodies of stone or wood which were bestowed on
Ahalyā and other persons in accordance with their deeds. We are thus led
to adopt the following definition--Any substance which a sentient soul
is capable of completely controlling and supporting for its own purposes,
and which stands to the soul in an entirely subordinate relation, is the
body of that soul. In the case of bodies injured, paralysed, &c.,
control and so on are not actually perceived because the power of
control, although existing, is obstructed; in the same way as, owing to
some obstruction, the powers of fire, heat, and so on may not be actually
perceived. A dead body again begins to decay at the very moment in which
the soul departs from it, and is actually dissolved shortly after; it
(thus strictly speaking is not a body at all but) is spoken of as a body
because it is a part of the aggregate of matter which previously
constituted a body. In this sense, then, all sentient and non-sentient
beings together constitute the body of the Supreme Person, for they are
completely controlled and supported by him for his own ends, and are
absolutely subordinate to him. Texts which speak of the highest Self as
'bodiless among bodies' (e.g. Ka. Up. I. 2, 22), only mean to deny of
the Self a body due to karman; for as we have seen, Scripture declares
that the Universe is his body. This point will be fully established in
subsequent adhikaranas also. The two preceding Sūtras (8 and 9) merely
suggest the matter proved in the adhikarana beginning with II, 1, 21.




10. And on account of the objections to his view.

The theory of Brahman being the universal cause has to be accepted not
only because it is itself free from objections, but also because the
pradhāna theory is open to objections, and hence must be abandoned. For
on this latter theory the origination of the world cannot be accounted
for. The Sānkhyas hold that owing to the soul's approximation to
Prakriti the attributes of the latter are fictitiously superimposed upon
the soul which in itself consists entirely of pure intelligence free
from all change, and that thereon depends the origination of the
empirical world. Now here we must raise the question as to the nature of
that approximation or nearness of Prakriti which causes the
superimposition on the changeless soul of the attributes of Prakriti.
Does that nearness mean merely the existence of Prakriti or some change
in Prakriti? or does it mean some change in the soul?--Not the latter;
for the soul is assumed to be incapable of change.--Nor again a change
in Prakriti; for changes in Prakriti are supposed, in the system, to be
the effects of superimposition, and cannot therefore be its cause. And
if, finally, the nearness of Prakriti means no more than its existence,
it follows that even the released soul would be liable to that
superimposition (for Prakriti exists always).--The Sānkhya is thus
unable to give a rational account of the origination of the world. This
same point will be treated of fully in connexion with the special
refutation of the Sānkhya theory. (II, 2, 6.)




11. Also in consequence of the ill-foundedness of reasoning.

The theory, resting on Scripture, of Brahman being the universal cause
must be accepted, and the theory of the Pradhāna must be abandoned,
because all (mere) reasoning is ill-founded. This latter point is proved
by the fact that the arguments set forth by Buddha, Kanāda, Akshapāda,
Jina, Kapila and Patańjali respectively are all mutually contradictory.




12. Should it be said that inference is to be carried on in a different
way; (we reply that) thus also it follows that (the objection raised) is
not got rid of.

Let us then view the matter as follows. The arguments actually set forth
by Buddha and others may have to be considered as invalid, but all the
same we may arrive at the Pradhāna theory through other lines of
reasoning by which the objections raised against the theory are refuted.--
But, we reply, this also is of no avail. A theory which rests
exclusively on arguments derived from human reason may, at some other
time or place, be disestablished by arguments devised by people more
skilful than you in reasoning; and thus there is no getting over the
objection founded on the invalidity of all mere argumentation. The
conclusion from all this is that, with regard to supersensuous matters,
Scripture alone is authoritative, and that reasoning is to be applied
only to the support of Scripture. In agreement herewith Manu says, 'He
who supports the teaching of the Rishis and the doctrine as to sacred
duty with arguments not conflicting with the Veda, he alone truly knows
sacred duty' (Manu XII, 106). The teaching of the Sānkhyas which
conflicts with the Veda cannot therefore be used for the purpose of
confirming and elucidating the meaning of the Veda.--Here finishes the
section treating of 'difference of nature.'




13. Thereby also the remaining (theories) which are not comprised
(within the Veda) are explained.

Not comprised means those theories which are not known to be comprised
within (countenanced by) the Veda. The Sūtra means to say that by the
demolition given above of the Sānkhya doctrine which is not comprised
within the Veda the remaining theories which are in the same position,
viz. the theories of Kanāda, Akshapāda, Jina, and Buddha, must likewise
be considered as demolished.

Here, however, a new objection may be raised, on the ground namely that,
since all these theories agree in the view of atoms constituting the
general cause, it cannot be said that their reasoning as to the causal
substance is ill-founded.--They indeed, we reply, are agreed to that
extent, but they are all of them equally founded on Reasoning only, and
they are seen to disagree in many ways as to the nature of the atoms
which by different schools are held to be either fundamentally void or
non-void, having either a merely cognitional or an objective existence,
being either momentary or permanent, either of a definite nature or the
reverse, either real or unreal, &c. This disagreement proves all those
theories to be ill-founded, and the objection is thus disposed of.--Here
finishes the section of 'the remaining (theories) non-comprised (within
the Veda).'




14. If it be said that from (Brahman) becoming an enjoyer, there follows
non-distinction (of Brahman and the individual soul); we reply--it may
be as in ordinary life.

The Sānkhya here comes forward with a new objection. You maintain, he
says, that the highest Brahman has the character either of a cause or an
effect according as it has for its body sentient and non-sentient beings
in either their subtle or gross state; and that this explains the
difference in nature between the individual soul and Brahman. But such
difference is not possible, since Brahman, if embodied, at once becomes
an enjoying subject (just like the individual soul). For if, possessing
a body, the Lord necessarily experiences all pain and pleasure due to
embodiedness, no less than the individual soul does.--But we have, under
I, 2, 8, refuted the view of the Lord's being liable to experiences of
pleasure and pain!--By no means! There you have shown only that the
Lord's abiding within the heart of a creature so as to constitute the
object of its devotion does not imply fruition on his part of pleasure
and pain. Now, however, you maintain that the Lord is embodied just like
an individual soul, and the unavoidable inference from this is that,
like that soul, he undergoes pleasurable and painful experiences. For we
observe that embodied souls, although not capable of participating in
the changing states of the body such as childhood, old age, &c., yet
experience pleasures and pains caused by the normal or abnormal
condition of the matter constituting the body. In agreement with this
Scripture says, 'As long as he possesses a body there is for him no
escape from pleasure and pain; but when he is free of the body then
neither pleasure nor pain touches him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1). As thus,
the theory of an embodied Brahman constituting the universal cause does
not allow of a distinction in nature between the Lord and the individual
soul; and as, further, the theory of a mere Brahman (i.e. an absolutely
homogeneous Brahman) leads to the conclusion that Brahman is the abode
of all the imperfections attaching to the world, in the same way as a
lump of clay or gold participates in the imperfections of the thing
fashioned out of it; we maintain that the theory of the Pradhāna being
the general cause is the more valid one.

To this objection the Sūtra replies in the words, 'it may be, as in
ordinary life.' The desired distinction in nature between the Lord and
the individual soul may exist all the same. That a soul experiences
pleasures and pains caused by the various states of the body is not due
to the fact of its being joined to a body, but to its karman in the form
of good and evil deeds. The scriptural text also which you quote refers
to that body only which is originated by karman; for other texts ('He is
onefold, he is threefold'; 'If he desires the world of the Fathers'; 'He
moves about there eating, playing, rejoicing'; Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2; VIII,
2, 1; 12, 3) show that the person who has freed himself from the bondage
of karman and become manifest in his true nature is not touched by a
shadow of evil while all the same he has a body. The highest Self, which
is essentially free from all evil, thus has the entire world in its
gross and its subtle form for its body; but being in no way connected
with karman it is all the less connected with evil of any kind.--'As in
ordinary life.' We observe in ordinary life that while those who either
observe or transgress the ordinances of a ruler experience pleasure or
pain according as the ruler shows them favour or restrains them, it does
not follow from the mere fact of the ruler's having a body that he
himself also experiences the pleasure and pain due to the observance or
transgression of his commands. The author of the Dramida-bhāshya gives
expression to the same view, 'As in ordinary life a prince, although
staying in a very unpleasant place infested with mosquitoes and full of
discomforts of all kind is yet not touched by all these troubles, his
body being constantly refreshed by fans and other means of comfort,
rules the countries for which he cares and continues to enjoy all
possible pleasures, such as fragrant odours and the like; so the Lord of
creation, to whom his power serves as an ever-moving fan as it were, is
not touched by the evils of that creation, but rules the world of
Brahman and the other worlds for which he cares, and continues to enjoy
all possible delights.' That the nature of Brahman should undergo
changes like a lump of clay or gold we do not admit, since many texts
declare Brahman to be free from all change and imperfection.--Others
give a different explanation of this Sūtra. According to them it refutes
the pūrvapaksha that on the view of Brahman being the general cause the
distinction of enjoying subjects and objects of enjoyment cannot be
accounted for--proving the possibility of such distinction by means of
the analogous instance of the sea and its waves and flakes of foam. But
this interpretation is inappropriate, since for those who hold that
creation proceeds from Brahman connected with some power or Nescience or
a limiting adjunct (upādhi) no such primā facie view can arise. For on
their theory the enjoying subject is that which is conditioned by the
power or Nescience or upādhi inhering in the causal substance, and the
power or Nescience or upādhi is the object of enjoyment; and as the two
are of different nature, they cannot pass over into each other. The view
of Brahman itself undergoing an essential change (on which that primā
facie view might possibly be held to arise) is not admitted by those
philosophers; for Sūtra II, 1, 35 teaches that the individual souls and
their deeds form a stream which has no beginning (so that the
distinction of enjoying subjects and objects of enjoyment is eternal).
But even if it be held that Brahman itself undergoes a change, the doubt
as to the non-distinction of subjects and objects of enjoyment does not
arise; for the distinction of the two groups will, on that view, be
analogous to that of jars and platters which are modifications of the
one substance clay, or to that of bracelets and crowns fashioned out of
the one substance gold. And on the view of Brahman itself undergoing a
change there arises a further difficulty, viz. in so far as Brahman
(which is nothing but pure non-conditioned intelligence) is held to
transform itself into (limited) enjoying souls and (non-sentient)
objects of enjoyment.




15. The non-difference (of the world) from that (viz. Brahman) follows
from what begins with the word ārambhana.

Under II, 1, 7 and other Sūtras the non-difference of the effect, i.e.
the world from the cause, i.e. Brahman was assumed, and it was on this
basis that the proof of Brahman being the cause of the world proceeded.
The present Sūtra now raises a primā facie objection against that very
non-difference, and then proceeds to refute it.

On the point in question the school of Kanāda argues as follows. It is
in no way possible that the effect should be non-different from the
cause. For cause and effect are the objects of different ideas: the
ideas which have for their respective objects threads and a piece of
cloth, or a lump of clay and a jar, are distinctly not of one and the
same kind. The difference of words supplies a second argument; nobody
applies to mere threads the word 'piece of cloth,' or vice versā. A
third argument rests on the difference of effects: water is not fetched
from the well in a lump of clay, nor is a well built with jars. There,
fourthly, is the difference of time; the cause is prior in time, the
effect posterior. There is, fifthly, the difference of form: the cause
has the shape of a lump, the effect (the jar) is shaped like a belly
with a broad basis; clay in the latter condition only is meant when we
say 'The jar has gone to pieces.' There, sixthly, is a numerical
difference: the threads are many, the piece of cloth is one only. In the
seventh place, there is the uselessness of the activity of the producing
agent (which would result from cause and effect being identical); for if
the effect were nothing but the cause, what could be effected by the
activity of the agent?--Let us then say that, although the effect _exists_
(at all times), the activity of the agent must be postulated as helpful
towards the effect.--But in that case the activity of the agent would
have to be assumed as taking place perpetually, and as hence everything
would exist always, there would be no distinction between eternal and
non-eternal things!--Let us then say that the effect, although always
existing, is at first non-manifest and then is manifested through the
activity of the agent; in this way that activity will not be purposeless,
and there will be a distinction between eternal and non-eternal things!--
This view also is untenable. For if that manifestation requires another
manifestation (to account for it) we are driven into a _regressus in
infinitum_. If, on the other hand, it is independent of another
manifestation (and hence eternal), it follows that the effect also is
eternally perceived. And if, as a third alternative, the manifestation
is said to originate, we lapse into the asatkāryavāda (according to
which the effect does not exist before its origination). Moreover, if
the activity of the agent serves to manifest the effect, it follows that
the activity devoted to a jar will manifest also waterpots and similar
things. For things which admittedly possess manifesting power, such as
lamps and the like, are not observed to be restricted to particular
objects to be manifested by them: we do not see that a lamp lit for
showing a jar does _not_ at the same time manifest waterpots and other
things. All this proves that the activity of the agent has a purpose in
so far only as it is the cause of the origination of an effect which
previously did _not_ exist; and thus the theory of the previous
existence of the effect cannot be upheld. Nor does the fact of definite
causes having to be employed (in order to produce definite effects; clay
e.g. to produce a jar) prove that that only which already exists can
become an effect; for the facts explain themselves also on the
hypothesis of the cause having definite potentialities (determining the
definite effect which will result from the cause).

But, an objection is raised, he also who holds the theory of the
previous non-existence of the effect, can really do nothing with the
activity of the agent. For as, on his view, the effect has no existence
before it is originated, the activity of the agent must be supposed to
operate elsewhere than on the effect; and as this 'elsewhere' comprises
without distinction all other things, it follows that the agent's
activity with reference to threads may give rise to waterpots also (not
only to cloth).--Not so, the Vaiseshika replies. Activity applied to a
certain cause gives rise to those effects only the potentiality of which
inheres in that cause.

Now, against all this, the following objection is raised. The effect is
non-different from the cause. For in reality there is no such thing as
an effect different from the cause, since all effects, and all empirical
thought and speech about effects, are based on Nescience. Apart from the
causal substance, clay, which is seen to be present in effected things
such as jars, the so-called effect, i.e. the jar or pot, rests
altogether on Nescience. All effected things whatever, such as jars,
waterpots, &c., viewed as different from their causal substance, viz.
clay, which is perceived to exist in these its effects, rest merely on
empirical thought and speech, and are fundamentally false, unreal; while
the causal substance, i.e. clay, alone is real. In the same way the
entire world in so far as viewed apart from its cause, i.e. Brahman
which is nothing but pure non-differenced Being, rests exclusively on
the empirical assumption of Egoity and so on, and is false; while
reality belongs to the causal Brahman which is mere Being. It follows
that there is no such thing as an effect apart from its cause; the
effect in fact is identical with the cause. Nor must you object to our
theory on the ground that the corroborative instance of the silver
erroneously imagined in the shell is inappropriate because the non-
reality of such effected things as jars is by no means well proved while
the non-reality of the shell-silver is so proved; for as a matter of
fact it is determined by reasoning that it is the causal substance of
jars, viz. clay, only that is real while the reality of everything apart
from clay is disproved by reasoning. And if you ask whereupon that
reasoning rests, we reply--on the fact that the clay only is continuous,
permanent, while everything different from it is discontinuous, non-
permanent. For just as in the case of the snake-rope we observe that the
continuously existing rope only--which forms the substrate of the
imagined snake--is real, while the snake or cleft in the ground, which
is non-continuous, is unreal; so we conclude that it is the permanently
enduring clay-material only which is real, while the non-continuous
effects, such as jars and pots, are unreal. And, further, since what is
real, i. e. the Self, does not perish, and what is altogether unreal, as
e.g. the horn of a hare, is not perceived, we conclude that an effected
thing, which on the one hand is perceived and on the other is liable to
destruction, must be viewed as something to be defined neither as that
which is nor as that which is not. And what is thus undefinable, is
false, no less than the silver imagined in the shell, the
anirvakanīyatva of which is proved by perception and sublation (see
above, p. 102 ff.).--We further ask, 'Is a causal substance, such as
clay, when producing its effect, in a non-modified state, or has it
passed over into some special modified condition?' The former
alternative cannot be allowed, because thence it would follow that the
cause originates effects at all times; and the latter must equally be
rejected, because the passing over of the cause into a special state
would oblige us to postulate a previous passing over into a different
state (to account for the latter passing over) and again a previous one,
&c., so that a _regressus in infinitum_ would result.--Let it then be
said that the causal substance when giving rise to the effect is indeed
unchanged, but connected with a special operative cause, time and place
(this connexion accounting for the origination of the effect).--But this
also we cannot allow; for such connexion would be with the causal
substance either as unchanged or as having entered on a changed
condition; and thus the difficulties stated above would arise again.--
Nor may you say that the origination of jars, gold coins, and sour milk
from clay, gold, and milk respectively is actually perceived; that this
perception is not sublated with regard to time and place--while, on the
other hand, the perception of silver in the shell is so sublated--and
that hence all those who trust perception must necessarily admit that
the effect _does_ originate from the cause. For this argumentation does
not stand the test of being set forth in definite alternatives. Does the
mere gold, &c., by itself originate the svastika-ornament? or is it the
gold coins (used for making ornaments) which originate? or is it the
gold, as forming the substrate of the coins [FOOTNOTE 434:1]? The mere
gold, in the first place, cannot be originative as there exists no
effect different from the gold (to which the originative activity could
apply itself); and a thing cannot possibly display originative activity
with regard to itself.--But, an objection is raised, the svastika-
ornament is perceived as different from the gold!--It is not, we reply,
different from the gold; for the gold is recognised in it, and no other
thing but gold is perceived.--But the existence of another thing is
proved by the fact of there being a different idea, a different word,
and so on!--By no means, we reply. Other ideas, words, and so on, which
have reference to an altogether undefined thing are founded on error, no
less than the idea of, and the word denoting, shell-silver, and hence
have no power of proving the existence of another thing. Nor, in the
second place, is the _gold coin_ originative of the svastika-ornament;
for we do not perceive the coin in the svastika, as we do perceive the
threads in the cloth. Nor, in the third place, is the effect originated
by the gold in so far as being the substrate of the coin; for the gold
in so far as forming the substrate of the coin is not perceived in the
svastika. As it thus appears that all effects viewed apart from their
causal substances are unreal, we arrive at the conclusion that the
entire world, viewed apart from Brahman, is also something unreal; for
it also is an effect.

In order to facilitate the understanding of the truth that everything
apart from Brahman is false, we have so far reasoned on the assumption
of things such as clay, gold, &c., being real, and have thereby proved
the non-reality of all effects. In truth, however, all special causal
substances are unreal quite as much as jars and golden ornaments are;
for they are all of them equally effects of Brahman.

'In that all this has its Self; it is the True' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 7);
'There is here no plurality; from death to death goes he who sees here
plurality as it were' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'For where there is duality
as it were, there one sees another; but when for him the Self only has
become all, whereby then should he see and whom should he see?' (Bri. Up.
II, 4, 13); 'Indra goes manifold by means of his māyās' (Bri. Up. II, 5,
19);--these and other similar texts teach that whatever is different
from Brahman is false. Nor must it be imagined that the truth intimated
by Scripture can be in conflict with Perception; for in the way set
forth above we prove that all effects are false, and moreover Perception
really has for its object pure Being only (cp. above, p. 30). And if
there is a conflict between the two, superior force belongs to Scripture,
to which no imperfection can be attributed; which occupies a final
position among the means of knowledge; and which, although dependent on
Perception, and so on, for the apprehension of the form and meaning of
words, yet is independent as far as proving power is concerned. Hence it
follows that everything different from Brahman, the general cause, is
unreal.

Nor must this conclusion be objected to on the ground that from the
falsity of the world it follows that the individual souls also are non-
real. For it is Brahman itself which constitutes the individual souls:
Brahman alone takes upon itself the condition of individual soul in all
living bodies; as we know from many texts: 'Having entered into them
with this living Self (Ch. Up. VI, 3); 'The one god hidden within all
beings' (Svet. Up. VI, 11); 'The one god entered in many places'; 'That
Self hidden in all beings does not shine forth' (Ka. Up. I, 3,12);
'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 3, 23); and others.--But
if you maintain that the one Brahman constitutes the soul in all living
bodies, it follows that any particular pain or pleasure should affect
the consciousness of all embodied beings, just as an agreeable sensation
affecting the foot gives rise to a feeling of pleasure in the head; and
that there would be no distinction of individual soul and Lord, released
souls and souls in bondage, pupils and teachers, men wise and ignorant,
and so on.

Now, in reply to this, some of those who hold the non-duality of Brahman
give the following explanation. The many individual souls are the
reflections of the one Brahman, and their states of pain, pleasure, and
so on, remain distinct owing to the different limiting adjuncts (on
which the existence of each individual soul as such depends), in the
same way as the many reflected images of one and the same face in
mirrors, crystals, sword-blades, &c., remain distinct owing to their
limiting adjuncts (viz. mirrors, &c.); one image being small, another
large, one being bright, another dim, and so on.--But you have said that
scriptural texts such as 'Having entered with this living Self show that
the souls are not different from Brahman!--They are indeed not different
in reality, but we maintain their distinction on the basis of an
imagined difference.--To whom then does that imagination belong? Not to
Brahman surely whose nature, consisting of pure intelligence, allows no
room for imagination of any kind! Nor also to the individual souls; for
this would imply a faulty mutual dependence, the existence of the soul
depending on imagination and that imagination residing in the soul! Not
so, the advaita-vādin replies. Nescience (wrong imagination) and the
existence of the souls form an endless retrogressive chain; their
relation is like that of the seed and the sprout. Moreover, mutual
dependence and the like, which are held to constitute defects in the
case of real things, are unable to disestablish Nescience, the very
nature of which consists in being that which cannot rationally be
established, and which hence may be compared to somebody's swallowing a
whole palace and the like (as seen in a dream or under the influence of
a magical illusion). In reality the individual souls are non-different
from Brahman, and hence essentially free from all impurity; but as they
are liable to impurity caused by their limiting adjuncts--in the same
way as the face reflected in a mirror is liable to be dimmed by the
dimness of the mirror--they may be the abodes of Nescience and hence may
be viewed as the figments of wrong imagination. Like the dimness of the
reflected face, the imperfection adhering to the soul is a mere error;
for otherwise it would follow that the soul can never obtain release.
And as this error of the souls has proceeded from all eternity, the
question as to its cause is not to be raised.

This, we reply, is the view of teachers who have no insight into the
true nature of aduality, and are prompted by the wish of capturing the
admiration and applause of those who believe in the doctrine of duality.
For if, as a first alternative, you should maintain that the abode of
Nescience is constituted by the soul in its essential, not fictitiously
imagined, form; this means that Brahman itself is the abode of Nescience.
If, in the second place, you should say that the abode of Nescience is
the soul, viewed as different from Brahman and fictitiously imagined in
it, this would mean that the Non-intelligent (jada) is the abode of
Nescience. For those who hold the view of Non-duality do not acknowledge
a third aspect different from these two (i.e. from Brahman which is pure
intelligence, and the Non-intelligent fictitiously superimposed on
Brahman). And if, as a third alternative, it be maintained that the
abode of Nescience is the soul in its essential nature, this nature
being however qualified by the fictitiously imagined aspect; we must
negative this also, since that which has an absolutely homogeneous
nature cannot in any way be shown to be qualified, apart from Nescience.
The soul is qualified in so far only as it is the abode of Nescience,
and you therefore define nothing.--Moreover, the theory of Nescience
abiding within the individual soul is resorted to for the purpose of
establishing a basis for the distinction of bondage and release, but it
really is quite unable to effect this. For if by Release be understood
the destruction of Nescience, it follows that when one soul attains
Release and Nescience is thus destroyed, the other souls also will be
released.--But Nescience persists because other souls are not released!--
Well then the one soul also is not released since Nescience is not
destroyed!--But we assume a different Nescience for each soul; that soul
whose Nescience is destroyed will be released, and that whose Nescience
is not destroyed will remain in Bondage!--You now argue on the
assumption of a special avidyā for each soul. But what about the
distinction of souls implied therein? Is that distinction essential to
the nature of the soul, or is it the figment of Nescience? The former
alternative is excluded, as it is admitted that the soul essentially is
pure, non-differenced intelligence; and because on that alternative the
assumption of avidyā to account for the distinction of souls would be
purposeless. On the latter alternative two subordinate alternatives
arise--Does this avidyā which gives rise to the fictitious distinction
of souls belong to Brahman? or to the individual souls?--If you say 'to
Brahman', your view coincides with mine.--Well then, 'to the souls'!--
But have you then quite forgotten that Nescience is assumed for the
purpose of accounting for the distinction of souls?--Let us then view
the matter as follows--those several avidyās which are assumed for the
purpose of establishing the distinction of souls bound and released, to
those same avidyās the distinction of souls is due.--But here you reason
in a manifest circle: the avidyās are established on the basis of the
distinction of souls, and the distinction of souls is established when
the avidyās are established. Nor does the argument of the seed and
sprout apply to the present question. For in the case of seeds and
plants each several seed gives rise to a different plant; while in the
case under discussion you adopt the impossible procedure of establishing
the several avidyās on the basis of the very souls which are assumed to
be due to those avidyās. And if you attempt to give to the argument a
somewhat different turn, by maintaining that it is the avidyās abiding
in the earlier souls which fictitiously give rise to the later souls, we
point out that this implies the souls being short-lived only, and
moreover that each soul would have to take upon itself the consequences
of deeds not its own and escape the consequences of its own deeds. The
same reasoning disposes of the hypothesis that it is Brahman which
effects the fictitious existence of the subsequent souls by means of the
avidyās abiding within the earlier souls. And if there is assumed a
beginningless flow of avidyās, it follows that there is also a
beginningless flow of the condition of the souls dependent on those
avidyās, and that steady uniformity of the state of the souls which is
supposed to hold good up to the moment of Release could thus not be
established. Concerning your assertion that, as Nescience is something
unreal and hence altogether unproved, it is not disestablished by such
defects as mutual dependence which touch real things only; we remark
that in that case Nescience would cling even to released souls and the
highest Brahman itself.--But impure Nescience cannot cling to what has
for its essence pure cognition!--Is Nescience then to be dealt with by
rational arguments? If so, it will follow that, on account of the
arguments set forth (mutual dependence, and so on), it likewise does not
cling to the individual souls. We further put the following question--
When the Nescience abiding in the individual soul passes away, owing to
the rise of the knowledge of truth, does then the soul also perish or
does it not perish? In the former case Release is nothing else but
destruction of the essential nature of the soul; in the latter case the
soul does not attain Release even on the destruction of Nescience, since
it continues to exist as soul different from Brahman.--You have further
maintained that the distinction of souls as pure and impure, &c., admits
of being accounted for in the same way as the dimness or clearness, and
so on, of the different images of a face as seen reflected in mirrors,
crystals, sword-blades and the like. But here the following point
requires consideration. On what occasion do the smallness, dimness and
other imperfections due to the limiting adjuncts (i.e. the mirrors, &c.)
pass away?--When the mirrors and other limiting adjuncts themselves pass
away!--Does then, we ask, the reflected image which is the substrate of
those imperfections persist or not? If you say that it persists, then by
analogy the individual soul also must be assumed to persist, and from
this it follows that it does not attain Release. And if the reflected
image is held to perish together with its imperfections, by analogy the
soul also will perish and then Release will be nothing but annihilation.--
Consider the following point also. The destruction of a non-advantageous
(apurushārtha) defect is of advantage to him who is conscious of that
disadvantage. Is it then, we ask, in the given case Brahman--which
corresponds to the thing reflected--that is conscious of the
imperfections due to the limiting adjuncts? or is it the soul which
corresponds to the reflected image? or is it something else? On the two
former alternatives it appears that the comparison (between Brahman and
the soul on the one hand, and the thing reflected and the reflection on
the other--on which comparison your whole theory is founded) does not
hold good; for neither the face nor the reflection of the face is
conscious of the imperfections due to the adjuncts; for neither of the
two is a being capable of consciousness. And, moreover, Brahman's being
conscious of imperfections would imply its being the abode of Nescience.
And the third alternative, again, is impossible, since there is no other
knowing subject _but_ Brahman and the soul.--It would, moreover, be
necessary to define who is the imaginatively shaping agent (kalpaka)
with regard to the soul as formed from Nescience. It cannot be Nescience
itself, because Nescience is not an intelligent principle. Nor can it be
the soul, because this would imply the defect of what has to be proved
being presupposed for the purposes of the proof; and because the
existence of the soul is that which _is formed_ by Nescience, just as
shell-silver is. And if, finally, you should say that Brahman is the
fictitiously forming agent, we have again arrived at a Brahman that is
the abode of Nescience.--If Brahman is not allowed to be the abode of
Nescience, we further must ask whether Brahman sees (is conscious of)
the individual souls or not. If not, it is not possible that Brahman
should give rise to this manifold creation which, as Scripture declares,
is preceded by 'seeing' on his part, and to the differentiation of names
and forms. If, on the other hand, Brahman which is of an absolutely
homogeneous nature sees the souls, it cannot do so without Nescience;
and thus we are again led to the view of Nescience abiding in Brahman.

For similar reasons the theory of the distinction of Māya and Nescience
must also be abandoned. For even if Brahman possesses Māyā, i.e.
illusive power, it cannot, without Nescience, be conscious of souls. And
without being conscious of others the lord of Māyā is unable to delude
them by his Māyā; and Māyā herself cannot bring about the consciousness
of others on the part of its Lord, for it is a mere means to delude
others, after they have (by other means) become objects of consciousness.--
Perhaps you will say that the Māyā of Brahman causes him to be conscious
of souls, and at the same time is the cause of those souls' delusion.
But if Māyā causes Brahman--which is nothing but self-illuminated
intelligence, absolutely homogeneous and free from all foreign elements--
to become conscious of other beings, then Māyā is nothing but another
name for Nescience.--Let it then be said that Nescience is the cause of
the cognition of what is contrary to truth; such being the case, Māyā
which presents all false things different from Brahman as false, and
thus is not the cause of wrong cognition on the part of Brahman, is _not_
avidyā.--But this is inadmissible; for, when the oneness of the moon is
known, that which causes the idea of the moon being double can be
nothing else but avidyā. Moreover, if Brahman recognises all beings
apart from himself as false, he does not delude them; for surely none
but a madman would aim at deluding beings known by him to be unreal!--
Let us then define avidyā as the cause of a disadvantageous cognition of
unreal things. Māyā then, as not being the cause of such a
disadvantageous cognition on Brahman's part, cannot be of the nature of
avidyā!--But this also is inadmissible; for although the idea of the
moon being double is not the cause of any pain, and hence not
disadvantageous to man, it is all the same caused by avidyā; and if, on
the other hand, Māyā which aims at dispelling that idea (in so far as it
presents the image and idea of one moon) did not present what is of
disadvantage, it would not be something to be destroyed, and hence would
be permanently connected with Brahman's nature.--Well, if it were so,
what harm would there be?--The harm would be that such a view implies
the theory of duality, and hence would be in conflict with the texts
inculcating non-duality such as 'For where there is duality as it were,
&c.; but when for him the Self only has become all, whereby then should
he see, and whom should he see?'--But those texts set forth the Real;
Māyā on the other hand is non-real, and hence the view of its permanency
is not in real conflict with the texts!--Brahman, we reply, has for its
essential nature unlimited bliss, and hence cannot be conscious of, or
affected with, unreal Māyā, without avidyā. Of what use, we further ask,
should an eternal non-real Māyā be to Brahman?--Brahman by means of it
deludes the individual souls!--But of what use should such delusion be
to Brahman?--It affords to Brahman a kind of sport or play!--But of what
use is play to a being whose nature is unlimited bliss?--Do we not then
see in ordinary life also that persons in the enjoyment of full
happiness and prosperity indulge all the same in play?--The cases are
not parallel, we reply. For none but persons not in their right mind
would take pleasure in an unreal play, carried on by means of implements
unreal and known by them to be unreal, and in the consciousness, itself,
unreal of such a play!--The arguments set forth previously also prove
the impossibility of the fictitious existence of an individual soul
considered as the abode of avidyā, apart from Brahman considered as the
abode of Māyā.

We thus arrive at the conclusion that those who hold the non-duality of
Brahman must also admit that it is Brahman alone which is affected with
beginningless avidyā, and owing to this avidyā is conscious of plurality
within itself. Nor must it be urged against him who holds this view of
avidyā belonging to Brahman that he is unable to account for the
distinction of bondage and release, for as there is only the one Brahman
affected with Nescience and to be released by the cessation of that
Nescience, the distinction of souls bound and released, &c., has no true
existence: the empirical distinction of souls bound and released, of
teachers and pupils, &c. is a merely fictitious one, and all such
fiction can be explained by means of the avidyā of one intelligent being.
The case is analogous to that of a person dreaming: the teachers and
pupils and all the other persons and things he may see in his dream are
fictitiously shaped out of the avidyā of the one dreaming subject. For
the same reason there is no valid foundation for the assumption of many
avidyās. For those also who hold that avidyā belongs to the individual
souls do not maintain that the distinction of bondage and release, of
one's own self and other persons, is real; and if it is unreal it can be
accounted for by the avidyā of one subject. This admits of being stated
in various technical ways.--The distinctions of bondage and of one's own
self and other persons are fictitiously shaped by one's own avidyā; for
they are unreal like the distinctions seen by a dreaming person.--Other
bodies also have a Self through me only; for they are bodies like this
my body.--Other bodies also are fictitiously shaped by my avidyā; for
they are bodies or effects, or non-intelligent or fictitious creations,
as this my body is.--The whole class of intelligent subjects is nothing
but _me_; for they are of intelligent nature; what is _not me_ is seen
to be of non-intelligent nature; as e.g. jars.--It thus follows that the
distinctions of one's own self and other persons, of souls bound and
released, of pupils and teachers, and so on, are fictitiously created by
the avidyā of one intelligent subject.

The fact is that the upholder of Duality himself is not able to account
for the distinction of souls bound and released. For as there is an
infinity of past aeons, it follows that, even if one soul only should
attain release in each aeon, all souls would by this time have attained
release; the actual existence of non-released souls cannot thus be
rationally accounted for.--But the souls are 'infinite'; this accounts
for there being souls not yet released!--What, pray, do you understand
by this 'infinity' of souls? Does it mean that they cannot be counted?
This we cannot allow, for although a being of limited knowledge may not
be able to count them, owing to their large number, the all-knowing Lord
surely can count them; if he could not do so it would follow that he is
not all-knowing.--But the souls are really numberless, and the Lord's
not knowing a definite number which does not exist does not prove that
he is not all-knowing!--Not so, we reply. Things which are definitely
separate (bhinna) from each other cannot be without number. Souls have a
number, because they are separate; just as mustard seeds, beans, earthen
vessels, pieces of cloth, and so on. And from their being separate it
moreover follows that souls, like earthen vessels, and so on, are non-
intelligent, not of the nature of Self, and perishable; and it further
follows therefrom that Brahman is not infinite. For by infinity we
understand the absence of all limitation. Now on the theory which holds
that there is a plurality of separate existences, Brahman which is
considered to differ in character from other existences cannot be said
to be free from substantial limitation; for substantial limitation means
nothing else than the existence of other substances. And what is
substantially limited cannot be said to be free from temporal and
spatial limitation; for observation shows that it is just those things
which differ in nature from other things and thus are substantially
limited--such as earthen vessels, and so on--which are also limited in
point of space and time. Hence all intelligent existences, including
Brahman, being substantially limited, are also limited in point of space
and time. But this conclusion leads to a conflict with those scriptural
texts which declare Brahman to be free from all limitation whatsoever
('The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman,' and similar texts), and
moreover would imply that the souls as well as Brahman are liable to
origination, decay, and so on; for limitation in time means nothing else
but a being's passing through the stages of origination, decay, and so
on.

The dvaita-view thus being found untenable on all sides, we adhere to
our doctrine that this entire world, from Brahmā down to a blade of
grass, springs from the avidyā attached to Brahman which in itself is
absolutely unlimited; and that the distinctions of consciousness of
pleasure and pain, and all similar distinctions, explain themselves from
the fact of all of them being of the nature of avidya, just as the
distinctions of which a dreaming person is conscious. The one Brahman,
whose nature is eternal self-illuminedness, free from all heterogeneous
elements, owing to the influence of avidyā illusorily manifests itself
(vivarttate) in the form of this world; and as thus in reality there
exists nothing whatever different from Brahman, we hold that the world
is 'non-different' from Brahman.

To this the Dvaitavādin, i.e. the Vaiseshika, replies as follows. The
doctrine that Brahman, which in itself is pure, non-differenced self-
illuminedness, has its own true nature hidden by avidyā and hence sees
plurality within itself, is in conflict with all the valid means of
right knowledge; for as Brahman is without parts, obscuration, i.e.
cessation, of the light of Brahman, would mean complete destruction of
Brahman; so that the hypothesis of obscuration is altogether excluded.
This and other arguments have been already set forth; as also that the
hypothesis of obscuration contradicts other views held by the Advaitin.
Nor is there any proof for the assertion that effects apart from their
causes are mere error, like shell-silver, the separate existence of the
effect being refuted by Reasoning; for as a matter of fact there is no
valid reasoning of the kind. The assertion that the cause only is real
because it persists, while the non-continuous effects--such as jars and
waterpots--are unreal, has also been refuted before, on the ground that
the fact of a thing not existing at one place and one time does not
sublate its real existence at another time and place. Nor is there any
soundness in the argumentation that the effect is false because, owing
to its being perceived and its being perishable, it cannot be defined
either as real or unreal. For a thing's being perceived and its being
perishable does not prove the thing's falseness, but only its non-
permanency. To prove a thing's falseness it is required to show that it
is sublated (i.e. that its non-existence is proved by valid means) with
reference to that very place and time in connexion with which it is
perceived; but that a thing is sublated with reference to a place and
time _other_ than those in connexion with which it is perceived, proves
only that the thing does not exist in connexion with that place and time,
but not that it is false. This view also may be put in technical form,
viz. effects such as jars and the like are real because they are not
sublated with regard to their definite place and time; just as the Self
is.--Nor is there any truth in the assertion that the effect cannot
originate from the cause either modified or unmodified; for the effect
may originate from the cause if connected with certain favouring
conditions of place, time, &c. Nor can you show any proof for the
assertion that the cause, whether modified or non-modified, cannot enter
into connexion with such favouring conditions; as a matter of fact the
cause may very well, without being modified, enter into such connexion.--
But from this it follows that the cause must have been previously
connected with those conditions, since previously also it was equally
unmodified!--Not so, we reply. The connexion with favouring conditions
of time, place, &c., into which the cause enters, depends on some other
cause, and not therefore on the fact of its not being modified. No fault
then can be found with the view of the cause, when having entered into a
special state depending on its connexion with time, place, &c.,
producing the effect. Nor can it be denied in any way that the cause
possesses originative agency with regard to the effect; for such agency
is actually observed, and cannot be proved to be irrational.--Further
there is no proof for the assertion that originative agency cannot
belong either to mere gold or to a (first) effect of gold such as coined
gold, or to gold in so far as forming the substrate for coins and the
like; for as a matter of fact mere gold (gold in general), if connected
with the helpful factors mentioned above, may very well possess
originative capacity. To say that we do not perceive any effect
different from gold is futile; for as a matter of fact we perceive the
svastika-ornament which is different from mere gold, and the existence
of different terms and ideas moreover proves the existence of different
things. Nor have we here to do with a mere error analogous to that of
shell-silver. For a real effected thing, such as a golden ornament, is
perceived during the whole period intervening between its origination
and destruction, and such perception is not sublated with regard to that
time and place. Nor is there any valid line of reasoning to sublate that
perception. That at the same time when the previously non-perceived
svastika-ornament is perceived the gold also is recognised, is due to
the fact of the gold persisting as the substrate of the ornament, and
hence such recognition of the causal substance does not disprove the
reality of the effect.--And the attempts to prove the unreality of the
world by means of scriptural texts we have already disposed of in a
previous part of this work.

We further object to the assertion that it is one Self which bestows on
all bodies the property of being connected with the Self; as from this
it would follow that one person is conscious of all the pains and
pleasures caused by all bodies. For, as seen in the case of Saubhari and
others, it is owing to the oneness of the Self that one person is
conscious of the pains and pleasures due to several bodies. Nor again
must you allege that the non-consciousness (on the part of one Self of
all pleasures and pains whatever), is due to the plurality of the Egos,
which are the subjects of cognition, and not to the plurality of Selfs;
for the Self is none other than the subject of cognition and the Ego.
The organ of egoity (ahamkāra), on the other hand, which is the same as
the internal organ (antahkarana), cannot be the knowing subject, for it
is of a non-intelligent nature, and is a mere instrument like the body
and the sense-organs. This also has been proved before.--Nor is there
any proof for your assertion that all bodies must be held to spring from
the avidyā of one subject, because they are bodies, non-intelligent,
effects, fictitious. For that all bodies are the fictitious creations of
avidyā is not true; since that which is not sublated by valid means of
proof must be held to be real.--Nor again can you uphold the assertion
that all intelligent subjects are non-different, i.e. one, because we
observe that whatever is other than a subject of cognition is non-
intelligent; for this also is disproved by the fact of the plurality of
intelligent subjects as proved by the individual distribution, among
them, of pleasures and pains.--You have further maintained 'Through me
only all bodies are animated by a Self; they are the fictitious
creations of _my_ avidyā; _I_ alone constitute the whole aggregate of
intelligent subjects,' and, on the basis of these averments, have
attempted to prove the oneness of the Ego. But all this is nothing but
the random talk of a person who has not mastered even the principles of
his own theory; for according to your theory the Self is pure
intelligence to which the whole distinction of 'I,' 'Thou,' &c., is
altogether foreign. Moreover, if it be held that everything different
from pure, non-differenced intelligence is false, it follows that all
effort spent on learning the Veda with a view to Release is fruitless,
for the Veda also is the effect of avidyā, and the effort spent on it
therefore is analogous to the effort of taking hold of the silver
wrongly imagined in the shell. Or, to put it from a different point of
view, all effort devoted to Release is purposeless, since it is the
effect of knowledge depending on teachers of merely fictitious existence.
Knowledge produced by texts such as 'Thou art that' does not put an end
to bondage, because it is produced by texts which are the fictitious
product of avidyā; or because it is itself of the nature of avidyā; or
because it has for its abode knowing subjects, who are mere creatures of
avidyā; or because it is the product of a process of study which depends
on teachers who are the mere creatures of avidyā; it is thus no better
than knowledge resting on texts teaching how bondage is to be put an end
to, which one might have heard in a dream. Or, to put the matter again
from a different point of view, Brahman constituted by pure non-
differenced intelligence is false, since it is to be attained by
knowledge, which is the effect of avidyā; or since it is to be attained
by knowledge abiding in knowing subjects who are mere figments of avidyā;
or because it is attained through knowledge which is the mere figment of
avidyā. For whatever is attained through knowledge of that kind is false;
as e.g. the things seen in dreams or a town of the Gandharvas (Fata
Morgana).

Nor does Brahman, constituted by pure non-differenced intelligence,
shine forth by itself, so as not to need--for its cognition--other means
of knowledge. And that that self-luminous knowledge which you declare to
be borne witness to by itself, really consists in the knowledge of
particular objects of knowledge--such knowledge abiding in particular
cognising subjects--this also has been proved previously. And the
different arguments which were set forth as proving Brahman's non-
differenced nature, are sufficiently refuted by what we have said just
now as to all such arguments themselves being the products of avidyā.

Nor again is there any sense in the theory that the principle of non-
differenced intelligence 'witnesses' avidyā, and implicates itself in
the error of the world. For 'witnessing' and error are observed to abide
only in definite conscious subjects, not in consciousness in general.
Nor can that principle of pure intelligence be proved to possess
illumining power or light depending on itself only. For by light
(enlightenment) we can understand nothing but definite well-established
knowledge (siddhi) on the part of some knowing subject with regard to
some particular object. It is on this basis only that you yourself prove
the self-illuminedness of your universal principle; to an absolutely non-
differenced intelligence not implying the distinction of subject and
object such 'svayamprakāsatā' could not possibly belong. With regard
again to what you so loudly proclaim at your meetings, viz. that real
effects are seen to spring even from unreal causes, we point out that
although you allow to such effects, being non-sublatcd as it were, a
kind of existence called 'empirical' (or 'conventional'--vyāvahārika),
you yourself acknowledge that fundamentally they are nothing but
products of avidyā; you thus undermine your own position. We have, on
the other hand, already disposed of this your view above, when proving
that in all cases effects are originated by real causes only. Nor may
you plead that what perception tells us in such cases is contradicted by
Scripture; for as, according to you, Scripture itself is an effect, and
hence of the essence of avidyā, it is in no better case than the
instances quoted. You have further declared that, although Brahman is to
be attained only through unreal knowledge, yet it is real since when
once attained it is not sublated by any subsequent cognition. But this
reasoning also is not valid; for when it has once been ascertained that
some principle is attained through knowledge resting on a vicious basis,
the fact that we are not aware of a subsequent sublation of that
principle is irrelevant. That the principle 'the reality of things is a
universal Void' is false, we conclude therefrom that the reasoning
leading to that principle is ascertained to be ill-founded, although we
are not aware of any subsequent truth sublating that principle. Moreover,
for texts such as 'There is here no plurality whatsoever', 'Knowledge,
bliss is Brahman,' the absence of subsequent sublation is claimed on the
ground that they negative the whole aggregate of things different from
mere intelligence, and hence are later in order than all other texts
(which had established that aggregate of things). But somebody may rise
and say 'the Reality is a Void', and thus negative the existence of the
principle of mere Intelligence also; and the latter principle is thus
sublated by the assertion as to the Void, which is later in order than
the texts which it negatives. On the other hand the assertion as to the
Void being the universal principle is not liable to subsequent sublation;
for it is impossible for any negation to go beyond it. And as to resting
on a vicious basis, there is in that respect no difference between
Perception and the other means of knowledge, and the view of general
unreality, founded on the Vedānta. The proper conclusion therefore is
that all cognitions whatsoever abide in real subjects of cognition and
are themselves real, consisting in mental certainty with regard to
special objects. Some of these cognitions rest on defects which
themselves are real; others spring from a combination of causes, real
and free from all defect. Unless we admit all this we shall not be able
to account in a satisfactory way for the distinction of things true and
things false, and for all empirical thought. For empirical thought,
whether true or of the nature of error, presupposes inward light
(illumination) in the form of certainty with regard to a particular
object, and belonging to a real knowing subject; mere non-differenced
Being, on the other hand (not particularised in the form of a knowing
subject), cannot be the cause of states of consciousness, whether
referring to real or Unreal things, and cannot therefore form the basis
of empirical thought.

Against our opponent's argument that pure Being must be held the real
substrate of all erroneous superimposition (adhyāsa), for the reason
that no error can exist without a substrate, we remark that an error may
take place even when its substrate is unreal, in the same way as an
error may exist even when the defect (giving rise to the error), the
abode of the defect, the subject of cognition and the cognition itself
are unreal. The argument thus loses its force. Possibly he will now
argue that as an error is never seen to exist where the substrate is
unreal, the reality of pure Being (as furnishing the required basis for
error) must necessarily be admitted. But, we point out, it also is a
fact that errors are never observed where the defect, the abode of the
defect, the knowing subject and the act of knowledge are unreal; and if
we pay regard to observation, we must therefore admit the reality of all
these factors as well. There is really no difference between the two
cases, unless our opponent chooses to be obstinate.

You further asserted that, on the theory of many really different Selfs,
it would follow from the infinity of the past aeons that all souls must
have been released before this, none being left in the state of bondage;
and that hence the actually observed distinction of souls bound and
released remains unexplained. But this argumentation is refuted by the
fact of the souls also being infinite. You indeed maintained that, if
the souls are really separate, they must necessarily have a definite
number like beans, mustard-seeds, earthen vessels, and so on; but these
instances are beside the point, as earthen vessels, and so on, are also
infinite in number.--But do we not actually see that all these things
have definite numbers, 'Here are ten jars; a thousand beans,' &c.?--True,
but those numbers do not belong to the essential nature of jars, and so
on, but only to jars in so far as connected with time, place, and other
limiting adjuncts. And that souls also have definite numbers in this
sense, we readily admit. And from this it does not follow that all souls
should be released; for essentially the souls are infinite (in number).--
Nor are you entitled to maintain that the real separation of individual
souls would imply that, as earthen vessels and the like, they are non-
intelligent, not of the nature of Self, and perishable. For the
circumstance of individuals of one species being distinct from each
other, does in no way imply that they possess the characteristics of
things belonging to another species: the individual separation of jars
does not imply their having the characteristics of pieces of cloth.--You
further maintain that from the hypothesis of a real plurality of souls
it follows that Brahman is substantially limited, and in consequence of
this limited with regard to time and space also, and that hence its
infinity is disproved. But this also is a mistaken conclusion. Things
substantially limited may be limited more or less with regard to time
and place: there is no invariable rule on this point, and the measure of
their connexion with space and time has hence to be determined in
dependence on other means of knowledge. Now Brahman's connexion with _all_
space and _all_ time results from such other means of proof, and hence
there is no contradiction (between this non-limitation with regard to
space and time, and its limitation in point of substance--which is due
to the existence of other souls).--But mere substantial limitation, as
meaning the absence of non-limitation of any kind, by itself proves that
Brahman is not infinite!--Well, then you yourself are in no better case;
for you admit that Brahman is something different from avidyā. From this
admission it follows that Brahman also is something 'different', and
thus all the disadvantages connected with the view of difference cling
to your theory as well. If on the other hand it should not be allowed
that Brahman differs in nature from avidyā, then Brahman's nature itself
is constituted by avidyā, and the text defining Brahman as 'the True,
knowledge, infinite' is contrary to sense.--If the reality of
'difference' is not admitted, then there is no longer any distinction
between the proofs and the mutual objections set forth by the advocates
of different theories, and we are landed in general confusion. The proof
of infinity, we further remark, rests altogether on the absence of
limitation of space and time, not on absence of substantial limitation;
absence of such limitation is something very much akin to the 'horn of a
hare' and is perceived nowhere. On the view of difference, on the other
hand, the whole world, as constituting Brahman's body, is its mode, and
Brahman is thus limited neither through itself nor through other things.--
We thus arrive at the conclusion that, as effects are real in so far as
different from their cause, the effect of Brahman, i.e. the entire world,
is different from Brahman.

Against this view the Sūtra now declares itself as follows.--The non-
difference of the world from Brahman, the highest cause, follows from
'what begins with the word ārambhana'--which proves such non-difference;
'what begins with the word ārambhana' means those clauses at the head of
which that word is met with, viz. 'vākārambhanam vikāro nāmadheyam
mrittikety eva satyam'; 'Being only this was in the beginning, one only,
without a second'; 'it thought, may I be many, may I grow forth; it sent
forth fire'; 'having entered with this living Self; 'In the True, my son,
all these creatures have their root, in the True they dwell, in the True
they rest'; 'In that all that exists has its Self; it is the True, it is
the Self; and thou art it, O Svetaketu' (Ch. Up. VI, 1-8)--it is these
clauses and others of similar purport which are met with in other
chapters, that the Sūtra refers to. For these texts prove the non-
difference from Brahman of the world consisting of non-sentient and
sentient beings. This is as follows. The teacher, bearing in his mind
the idea of Brahman constituting the sole cause of the entire world and
of the non-difference of the effect from the cause, asks the pupil,
'Have you ever asked for that instruction by which the non-heard is
heard, the non-perceived is perceived, the not known is known'; wherein
there is implied the promise that, through the knowledge of Brahman the
general cause, its effect, i.e. the whole Universe, will be known? The
pupil, not knowing that Brahman is the sole cause of the Universe,
raises a doubt as to the possibility of one thing being known through
another,'How then, Sir, is that instruction?' and the teacher thereupon,
in order to convey the notion of Brahman being the sole universal cause,
quotes an instance showing that the non-difference of the effect from
the cause is proved by ordinary experience, 'As by one clod of clay
there is known everything that is made of clay'; the meaning being 'as
jars, pots, and the like, which are fashioned out of one piece of clay,
are known through the cognition of that clay, since their substance is
not different from it.'In order to meet the objection that according to
Kanāda's doctrine the effect constitutes a substance different from the
cause, the teacher next proceeds to prove the non-difference of the
effect from the cause by reference to ordinary experience,
'vākārambhanam vikāro namadheyam mrittikety eva satyam'. Ārambhanam must
here be explained as that which is taken or touched (ā-rabh = ā-labh;
and 'ālambhah sparsahimsayoh'); compare Pānini III, 3, 113, as to the
form and meaning of the word. 'Vākā,' 'on account of speech,' we take to
mean 'on account of activity preceded by speech'; for activities such as
the fetching of water in a pitcher are preceded by speech,'Fetch water
in the pitcher,' and so on. For the bringing about of such activity, the
material clay (which had been mentioned just before) touches (enters
into contact with) an effect (vikāra), i.e. a particular make or
configuration, distinguished by having a broad bottom and resembling the
shape of a belly, and a special name (nāmadheya), viz. _pitcher_, and so
on, which is applied to that effect; or, to put it differently, to the
end that certain activities may be accomplished, the substance clay
receives a new configuration and a new name. [FOOTNOTE 455:1] Hence jars
and other things of clay are clay (mrittikā), i.e. are of the substance
of clay, only; this _only_ is true (satyam), i.e. known through
authoritative means of proof; _only_ (eva), because the effects are not
known as different substances. One and the same substance therefore,
such as clay or gold, gives occasion for different ideas and words only
as it assumes different configurations; just as we observe that one and
the same Devadatta becomes the object of different ideas and terms, and
gives rise to different effects, according to the different stages of
life--youth, old age, &c.--which he has reached.--The fact of our saying
'the jar has perished' while yet the clay persists, was referred to by
the Pūrvapakshin as proving that the effect is something different from
the cause; but this view is disproved by the view held by us that
origination, destruction, and so on, are merely different states of one
and the same causal substance. According as one and the same substance
is in this or that state, there belong to it different terms and
different activities, and these different states may rightly be viewed
as depending on the activity of an agent. The objections again which are
connected with the theory of 'manifestation' are refuted by our not
acknowledging such a thing at all as 'manifestation.' Nor does the
admission of origination render the doctrine of the reality of the
effect irrational; for it is only the Real that originates.--But it is a
contradiction to maintain that that which previously exists is
originated!--This, we reply, is the objection of a person who knows
nothing about the true nature of origination and destruction. A
substance enters into different states in succession; what passes away
is the substance in its previous states, what originates is the
substance in its subsequent states. As thus the substance in all its
states has being, there is nothing irrational in the satkārya theory.--
But the admission of the origination of a non-existing state lands us in
the asatkārya theory!--If he, we retort, who holds the asatkārya theory
is of opinion that the origination of the effect does not itself
originate, he is similarly landed in the satkārya theory; and if he
holds that the origination itself originates, he is led into a
_regressus in infinitum_. According to us, on the other hand, who hold
that states are incapable of being apprehended and of acting apart from
that of which they are states, origination, destruction, and so on,
belong only to a substance which is in a certain state; and on this
theory no difficulty remains. And in the same way as the state of being
a jar results from the clay abandoning the condition of being either two
halves of a jar or a lump of clay, plurality results from a substance
giving up the state of oneness, and oneness from the giving up of
plurality; hence this point also gives rise to no difficulty.

We now consider the whole Chāndogya-text in connexion. 'Sad eva somyedam
agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam.' This means--That which is Being, i.e. this
world which now, owing to the distinction of names and forms, bears a
manifold shape, was in the beginning one only, owing to the absence of
the distinction of names and forms. And as, owing to the 'Sat' being
endowed with all powers, a further ruling principle is out of the
question, the world was also 'without a second.' This proves the non-
difference of the world from Brahman. In the same way the next clause
also,' It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,' which describes the
creation of the world as proceeding from a resolve of the Self to
differentiate itself into a world consisting of manifold beings movable
and immovable, viz. Fire, and so on, enables us to determine that the
effect, i. e. the world, is non-different from the highest cause, i.e.
the highest Brahman.

And as now a further doubt may arise as to how the highest Brahman with
all its perfections can be designated as one with the world, and how the
world can be designated as one, without a second, not dependent on
another guiding principle; and how this thought, i.e. the resolution, on
the part of the Supreme cause, of differentiating itself into a manifold
world, and the creation corresponding to that resolution are possible;
the text continues,'That deity thought--Let me now enter those three
beings with this living Self (jīva ātman) and distinguish names and
forms'--which means, 'Let me make the aggregate of non-sentient things
(for this is meant by the "three beings") to possess various names and
forms, by entering into them by means of the gīva, which is of the
nature of my Self.'The possession of names and forms must thus be
understood to be effected by the jīva entering into matter as its Self.
There is another scriptural text also which makes it clear that the
highest Brahman enters, so as to be their Self, into the world together
with the jīvas. 'Having sent forth that he entered into it. Having
entered into it he became sat and tyat (i.e. sentient and non-sentient
beings).'And that the entire aggregate of sentient and non-sentient
beings, gross or subtle, in their effected or their causal state,
constitutes the body of the highest Brahman, and that on the other hand
the highest Brahman constitutes their Self--this is proved by the
antaryāmin-brāhmana and similar texts. This disposes of the doubt raised
above. Since Brahman abides, as their Self, in all non-sentient matter
together with the jīvas, Brahman is denoted by the term 'world' in so
far only as it (i.e. Brahman) has non-sentient and sentient beings for
its body, and hence utterances such as 'This which is Being only was in
the beginning one only' are unobjectionable in every way. All change and
all imperfection belongs only to the beings constituting Brahman's body,
and Brahman itself is thus proved to be free from all imperfection, a
treasure as it were of all imaginable holy qualites. This point will be
further elucidated under II, 1, 22.--The Chāndogya-text then further
teaches that all sentient and non-sentient beings have their Self in
Brahman 'in that all this has its Self; and further inculcates this
truth in 'Thou art that.'

Texts met with in other sections also teach this same non-difference of
the general cause and its effect: 'All this indeed is Brahman' (Ch. Up.
III, 14, 1); 'When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known,
then all this is known' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 6); 'That Self is all this'
(Bri. Up. II, 4, 6); 'Brahman indeed is all this' (Mai. Up. IV, 6); 'The
Self only is all this' (Ch. Up. VII, 25, 2). Other texts, too, negative
difference: 'Everything abandons him who looks for anything elsewhere
than in the Self (Bri. Up. II, 4, 6); 'There is not any plurality here'
(Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees here any
plurality' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19). And in the same spirit the passage 'For
where there is duality as it were, one sees the other; but when for him
the Self has become all, whereby then should he sec and whom?'(Bri. Up.
11,4, 13)--in setting forth that the view of duality belongs to him who
does not know and the view of non-duality to him who knows--intimates
that non-difference only is real.

It is in this way that we prove, by means of the texts beginning with
ārambhana, that the world is non-different from the universal cause, i.e.
the highest Brahman. Brahman only, having the aggregate of sentient and
non-sentient beings for its body and hence for its modes (prakāra), is
denoted by all words whatsoever. The body of this Brahman is sometimes
constituted by sentient and non-sentient beings in their subtle state,
when--just owing to that subtle state--they are incapable of being
(conceived and) designated as apart from Brahman whose body they form:
Brahman is then in its so-called causal condition. At other times the
body of Brahman is constituted by all sentient and non-sentient beings
in their gross, manifest state, owing to which they admit of being
thought and spoken of as having distinct names and forms: Brahman then
is in its 'effected' state. The effect, i.e. the world, is thus seen to
be non-different from the cause, i.e. the highest Brahman. And that in
the effected as well as the causal state of Brahman's body as
constituted by sentient and non-sentient beings, and of Brahman embodied
therein, perfections and imperfections are distributed according to the
difference of essential nature between Brahman and its body, as proved
by hundreds of scriptural texts, we have shown above.

Those on the other hand who establish the non-difference of cause and
effect, on the basis of the theory of the effect's non-reality, are
unable to prove what they wish to prove; for the True and the False
cannot possibly be one. If these two were one, it would follow either
that Brahman is false or that the world is real.--Those again who (like
Bhāskara) hold the effect also to be real--the difference of the soul
and Brahman being due to limiting conditions, while their non-difference
is essential; and the difference as well as the non-difference of
Brahman and matter being essential--enter into conflict with all those
texts which declare that the soul and Brahman are distinct in so far as
the soul is under the power of karman while Brahman is free from all
evil, &c., and all those texts which teach that non-sentient matter
undergoes changes while Brahman does not. For as, according to them,
nothing exists but Brahman and the limiting adjuncts, Brahman--as being
indivisible--must be undivided while entering into connexion with the
upādhis, and hence itself undergoes a change into inferior forms. And if
they say that it is only the power (sakti), not Brahman itself, which
undergoes a change; this also is of no avail since Brahman and its power
are non-different.

Others again (Yādavaprakāsa) hold that the general cause, i.e. Brahman,
is pure Being in which all distinctions and changes such as being an
enjoying subject, and so on, have vanished, while however it is endowed
with all possible potentialities. During a pralaya this causal substance
abides self-luminous, with all the distinctions of consciousness of
pleasure and pain gone to rest, comparable to the soul of a man held by
dreamless sleep, different however in nature from mere non-sentient
matter. During the period of a creation, on the other hand, just as the
substance called clay assumes the forms of jars, platters, and so on, or
as the water of the sea turns itself into foam, waves, bubbles, and so
on, the universal causal substance abides in the form of a triad of
constituent parts, viz. enjoying subjects, objects of enjoyment, and a
ruler. The attributes of being a ruler, or an object of enjoyment, or an
enjoying subject, and the perfections and imperfections depending on
those attributes, are therefore distributed in the same way as the
attributes of being a jar or pitcher or platter; and the different
effects of these attributes are distributed among different parts of the
substance, clay. The objects of enjoyment, subjects of enjoyment, and
the ruler are one, on the other hand, in so far as 'that which is'
constitutes their substance; just as jars, platters and pitchers are one
in so far as their substance is constituted by clay. It is thus one
substance only, viz. 'that which is,' that appears in different
conditions, and it is in this sense that the world is non-different from
Brahman.--But this theory is really in conflict with all Scripture,
Smriti, Itihāsa, Purāna and Reasoning. For Scripture, Smriti, Itihāsa
and Purāna alike teach that there is one supreme cause, viz. Brahman--a
being that is the Lord of all Lords, all-knowing, all-powerful,
instantaneously realising all its purposes, free of all blemish, not
limited either by place or time, enjoying supreme unsurpassable bliss.
Nor can it be held that above the Lord there is 'pure Being' of which
the Lord is a part only. For 'This which is "being" only was in the
beginning one only, without a second; it thought, may I be many, may I
grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'Verily, in the beginning this was
Brahman, one only. Being one it was not strong enough. It created the
most excellent Kshattra, viz. those Kshattras among the Devas--Indra,
Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu, īsāna' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 11);
'In the beginning all this was Self, one only; there was nothing
whatsoever else blinking. He thought, shall I send forth worlds' (Ait.
Įr. II, 4, 1, 1, 2); 'There was in truth Nārāyana only, not Brahmā, not
Īsāna, nor heaven and earth, nor the nakshatras, nor the waters, nor
Agni, nor Soma, nor Sūrya. Being alone he felt no delight. Of him merged
in meditation' &c. (Mahānā. Up. I, 1)--these and other texts prove that
the highest cause is the Lord of all Lords, Nārāyana. For as the terms
'Being,' 'Brahman,' 'Self,' which are met with in sections treating of
the same topic, are in one of those parallel sections particularised by
the term 'Nārāyana,' it follows that they all mean Nārāyana. That the
Lord only is the universal cause is shown by the following text also,
'He the highest great lord of lords, the highest deity of deities--he is
the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him
neither parent nor lord' (Svet. Up. VI, 7, 9). Similarly the Manu Smriti,
'Then the divine Self-existent (Brahmā)--desirous to produce from his
own body beings of many kind--first with a thought created the waters
and placed his seed in them' (Ma. I, 6-8). Itihāsas and Purānas also
declare the Supreme Person only to be the universal cause, 'Nārāyana, of
whom the world is the body, of infinite nature, eternal, when desirous
to create sent forth from a thousandth part of himself the souls in two
divisions.' 'From Vishnu the world originated and in him it abides.'

Nor is it possible to hold that the Lord is pure 'Being' only, for such
'Being' is admitted to be an element of the Lord; and moreover all
'Being' has difference. Nor can it be maintained that the Lord's
connexion with all his auspicious qualities--knowledge, bliss, and so
on--is occasional (adventitious) merely; it rather is essential and
hence eternal. Nor may you avail yourself of certain texts--viz. 'His
high power (sakti) is revealed as manifold, as essential, and (so) his
knowledge, strength and action' (Svet. Up. VI, 8); 'He who is all-
knowing, all-cognising' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9), and others--to the end of
proving that what is essential is only the Lord's connexion with the
_potentialities_ (sakti) of knowledge, bliss, and so on. For in the
Svetāsvatara-text the word 'essential' independently qualifies
'knowledge, strength, and action' no less than 'sakti'; and your
explanation would necessitate so-called implication (lakshanā). Nor
again can it be said that in words such as sarvjńa (all-knowing), the
formative suffix expresses potentiality only, as it admittedly does in
other words such as pākaka (cook); for grammar does not teach that all
these (krit) affixes in general express potentiality or capability only.
It rather teaches (cp. Pānini III, 2, 54) that a few krit-affixes only
have this limited meaning; and in the case of pākaka and similar words
we must assume capability to be denoted, because there is no other
explanation open to us.--If, moreover, the Lord were held to be only a
part of the Sat it would follow that the Sat, as the whole, would be
superior to the Lord just as the ocean is superior to a wave, and this
would be in conflict with ever so many scriptural texts which make
statements about the Lord, cp. e.g. 'Him the highest great lord of
lords'; 'There is none seen like to him or superior' (Svet. Up. VI, 7,
8). If, moreover, mere Being is held to be the Self of all and the
general whole, and the Lord only a particular part of it, this would
imply the stultification of all those texts which declare the Lord to be
the general Self and the whole of which all beings are parts; for jars
and platters certainly cannot be held to be parts of, and to have their
being in, pitchers (which themselves are only special things made of
clay). Against this you perhaps will plead that as Being in general is
fully present in all its parts, and hence also in that part which is the
Lord, all other things may be viewed as having their Self in and being
parts of, him.--But from your principles we might with equal right draw
the inference that as Being in general is fully present in the jar, the
Lord is a part of the jar and has his Self in that! From enunciations
such as 'the jar is,' 'the cloth is,' it appears that Being is an
attribute of things, and cannot therefore be a substance and a cause. By
the 'being' of a thing we understand the attribute of its being suitable
for some definite practical effect; while its 'non-being' means its
suitability for an effect of an opposite nature.--Should it on the other
hand be held that substances only have being, the (unacceptable)
consequence would be that actions, and so on, are non-existent. And if
(to avoid this consequence) it were said that the being of actions, and
so on, depends on their connexion with substances, it would be difficult
to show (what yet should be shown) that 'being' is everywhere of one and
the same nature. Moreover, if everything were non-different in so far as
'being,' there would be a universal consciousness of the nature of
everything, and from this there would follow a general confusion of all
good and evil (i.e. every one would have conscious experience of
everything) This point we have explained before. For all these reasons
non-difference can only have the meaning set forth by us.--Here the
following doubt may arise. In the case of childhood, youth, and so on,
we observe that different ideas and different terms are applied to
different states of one and the same being; in the case of clay, wood,
gold, &c., on the other hand, we observe that different ideas and terms
are applied to different things. On what ground then do you determine
that in the case of causes and effects, such as e.g. clay and jars, it
is mere difference of state on which the difference of ideas and terms
is based?--To this question the next Sūtra gives a reply.

[FOOTNOTE 434:1. In other words--is the golden ornament originated by
the mere formless substance, gold; or by the form belonging to that
special piece of gold (a coin, a bar, &c.), out of which the ornament is
fashioned; or by the substance, gold, in so far as possessing that
special form? The rukaka of the text has to be taken in the sense of
nishka.]

[FOOTNOTE 455:1. The meaning of the four words constituting the clause
therefore would be, 'On account of speech (i.e. for the sake of the
accomplishment of certain activities such as the bringing of water,
which are preceded by speech), there is touched (by the previously
mentioned substance clay) an effect and a name; i.e. for the sake of, &c.,
clay modifies itself into an effect having a special name.'The
Commentary remarks that' ārambhanam 'cannot be taken in the sense of
upādāna; since, on the theory of the unreality of effects, the effect is
originated not by speech but by thought (imagination) only; and on the
parināma doctrine the effect is likewise not originated by speech but by
Brahman.]




16. And because (the cause) is perceived in the existence of the effect.

This means--because gold which is the cause is perceived in the
existence of its effects, such as earrings and the like; i.e. on account
of the recognition of gold which expresses itself in the judgment 'this
earring is gold.' We do not on the other hand perceive the presence of
clay, and so on, in gold, and so on. The case of the cause and the
effect is thus analagous to that of the child and the youth: the word
'effect' denotes nothing else but the causal substance which has passed
over into a different condition. He also who holds the effect to be a
new thing acknowledges that the effect is connected with a different
state, and as this different state suffices to account for the
difference of ideas and words, we are not entitled to assume a new
substance which is not perceived. Nor must it be said that the
recognition of the gold in the earring is due to generic nature (the two
_things_ being different, but having the same generic nature); for we
perceive no new substance which could be the abode of the generic
character. What we actually perceive is one and the same substance
possessing the generic characteristics of gold, first in the causal
state and then in the effected state. Nor again can it be said that even
on the supposition of difference of substance, recognition of the cause
in the effect results from the continuity of the so-called intimate
cause (samavāyi-kāraina). For where there is difference of substances
we do not observe that mere continuity of the abode gives rise to the
recognition (of one substance) in the other substance residing in that
abode.-But in the case of certain effects, as e.g. scorpions and other
vermin which originate from dung, that recognition of the causal
substance, i.e. dung (to which you refer as proving the identity of
cause and effect), is not observed to take place!--You misstate the
case, we reply; here also we _do_ recognise in the effect that substance
which is the primal cause, viz. earth.--But in smoke, which is the
effect of fire, we do not recognise fire!--True! but this does not
disprove our case. Fire is only the operative cause of smoke; for smoke
originates from damp fuel joined with fire. That smoke is the effect of
damp fuel is proved thereby, as well as that both have smell (which
shows them to be alike of the substance of earth).--As thus the identity
of the substance is perceived in the effect also, we are entitled to
conclude that the difference of ideas and terms rests on difference of
state only. The effect, therefore, is non-different from the
cause.--This is so for the following reason also.




17. And on account of the existence of that which is posterior.

On account of the existence of the posterior, i.e. the effect existing
in the cause--for this reason also the effect is non-different from the
cause. For in ordinary language as well as in the Veda the effect is
spoken of in terms of the cause; as when we say, 'all these things--jars,
platters, &c.--were clay only this morning'; or when the Veda says,
'Being only was this in the beginning.'




18. If it be said 'not, on account of the designation of the (effect as
the) non-existent; we reply, not so, on account (of such designation
being due to) another attribute, (as appears) from the complementary
passage, from Reasoning, and from another Vedic text.

The assertion that ordinary speech as well as the Veda acknowledges the
existence of the effect in the cause cannot be upheld 'on account of the
designation of (the effect as) the non-existent.' For the Veda says,
'Non-being only was this in the beginning' (Ch. Up. III, 19, 1); 'Non-
being indeed was this in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 6. 1); 'In the
beginning truly this was not anything whatever.' And in ordinary
language we say 'In the morning all this--jars, platters, and so on,--
was not.'--This objection the Sūtra proceeds to refute. 'Not so, on
account of such designation being due to another attribute.' The
designation of the effected substance as the non-existent is due to the
effect having at an earlier time a different quality, i.e. a different
constitution; not to its being, as you think, absolutely non-existing.
The quality different from the quality of existence is non-existence;
that is to say, of the world designated as _this_, the quality of
existence is constituted by name and form, while the quality of non-
existence consists in the subtle state opposed to name and form.--But
how is this known?--'From the complementary passage, from Reasoning, and
from another text.' The complementary passage is the one following on
the last text quoted above, viz. 'that Non-existent formed the resolve
"may I be". The resolve referred to in this complementary text serving
as an inferential sign to determine that the Non-existence spoken of is
other than absolute Non-existence, we, on the basis of the observation
that all the three texts quoted treat of the same matter, conclude that
in the other two texts also the Non-existent has to be understood in the
same sense. 'From Reasoning.' Reasoning shows Being and Non-being to be
attributes of things. The possession, on the part of clay, of a certain
shape, a broad base, a belly-shaped body, and so on, is the cause of our
thinking and saying 'the jar exists,' while the connexion, on the part
of the clay, with a condition opposed to that of a jar is the cause of
our thinking and saying 'the jar does not exist.' A condition of the
latter kind is e. g.--the clay's existing in the form of two separate
halves of a jar, and it is just this and similar conditions of the clay
which account for our saying that the jar does not exist. We do not
perceive any non-existence of the jar different from the kind of non-
existence described; and as the latter sufficiently accounts for all
current ideas and expressions as to non-existence, there is no occasion
to assume an additional kind of non-existence.--And also 'from another
text.' The text meant is that often quoted, 'Being only was this in the
beginning.' For there the view of the absolute non-being of the effect
is objected to, 'But how could it be thus?' &c., and then the decision
is given that from the beginning the world was 'being.' This matter is
clearly set forth in the text 'This was then undistinguished; it became
distinguished by name and form' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7).

The next two Sūtras confirm the doctrine of the non-difference of the
effect from the cause by two illustrative instances.




19. And like a piece of cloth.

As threads when joined in a peculiar cross-arrangement are called a
piece of cloth, thus acquiring a new name, a new form, and new functions,
so it is with Brahman also.




20. And as the different vital airs.

As the one air, according as it undergoes in the body different
modifications, acquires a new name, new characteristics, and new
functions, being then called prāna, apāna, and so on; thus the one
Brahman becomes the world, with its manifold moving and non-moving
beings.--The non-difference of the world from Brahman, the highest cause,
is thus fully established.

Here terminates the 'ārambhana' adhikarana.




21. From the designation of the 'other' (as non-different from Brahman)
there result (Brahman's) not creating what is beneficial, and other
imperfections.

'Thou art that'; 'this Self is Brahman'--these and similar texts which
declare the non-difference of the world from Brahman, teach, as has been
said before, at the same time the non-difference from Brahman of the
individual soul also. But an objection here presents itself. If these
texts really imply that the 'other one,' i.e. the soul, is Brahman,
there will follow certain imperfections on Brahman's part, viz. that
Brahman, endowed as it is with omniscience, the power of realising its
purposes, and so on, does not create a world of a nature beneficial to
itself, but rather creates a world non-beneficial to itself; and the
like. This world no doubt is a storehouse of numberless pains, either
originating in living beings themselves or due to the action of other
natural beings, or caused by supernatural agencies. No rational
independent person endeavours to produce what is clearly non-beneficial
to himself. And as you hold the view of the non-difference of the world
from Brahman, you yourself set aside all those texts which declare
Brahman to be different from the soul; for were there such difference,
the doctrine of general non-difference could not be established. Should
it be maintained that the texts declaring difference refer to difference
due to limiting adjuncts, while the texts declaring non-difference mean
essential non-difference, we must ask the following question--does the
non-conditioned Brahman know, or does it not know, the soul which is
essentially non-different from it? If it does not know it, Brahman's
omniscience has to be abandoned. If, on the other hand, it knows it,
then Brahman is conscious of the pains of the soul--which is non-
different from Brahman--as its own pains; and from this there
necessarily follows an imperfection, viz. that Brahman does not create
what is beneficial and does create what is non-beneficial to itself. If,
again, it be said that the difference of the soul and Brahman is due to
Nescience on the part of both, and that the texts declaring difference
refer to difference of this kind, the assumption of Nescience belonging
to the soul leads us to the very alternatives just stated and to their
respective results. Should the ajńana, on the other hand, belong to
Brahman, we point out that Brahman, whose essential nature is self-
illuminedness, cannot possibly be conscious of ajńana and the creation
of the world effected by it. And if it be said that the light of Brahman
is obscured by ajńana, we point to all the difficulties, previously set
forth, which follow from this hypothesis--to obscure light means to make
it cease, and to make cease the light of Brahman, of whom light is the
essential nature, means no less than to destroy Brahman itself. The view
of Brahman being the cause of the world thus shows itself to be
untenable.--This primā facie view the next Sūtra refutes.




22. But (Brahman is) additional, on account of the declaration of
difference.

The word 'but' sets aside the primā facie view. To the individual soul
capable of connexion with the various kinds of pain there is additional,
i.e. from it there is different, Brahman.--On what ground?--'Owing to
the declaration of difference.' For Brahman is spoken of as different
from the soul in the following texts:--'He who dwells in the Self and
within the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the
body, who rules the Self within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the
immortal' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Knowing as separate the Self and the
Mover, blessed by him he gains Immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6); 'He is the
cause, the Lord of the lords of the organs' (i.e. the individual souls)
(Svet Up. VI, 9); 'One of them eats the sweet fruit; without eating the
other looks on' (Svet. Up. IV, 6); 'There are two, the one knowing, the
other not knowing, both unborn, the one a ruler, the other not a ruler'
(Svet. Up. I, 9); 'Embraced by the prājńa. Self (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 21);
'Mounted by the prājńa. Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 35); 'From that the ruler
of māyā sends forth all this, in that the other is bound up through māyā
(Svet. Up. IV, 9); 'the Master of the Pradhāna and the souls, the lord
of the gunas' (Svet. Up. VI, 16);'the eternal among eternals, the
intelligent among the intelligent, who, one, fulfils the desires of
many' (Svet. Up. VI, 13); 'who moves within the Unevolved, of whom the
Unevolved is the body, whom the Unevolved does not know; who moves
within the Imperishable, of whom the Imperishable is the body, whom the
Imperishable does not know; who moves within Death, of whom Death is the
body, whom Death does not know; he is the inner Self of all beings, free
from evil, the divine one, the one God, Nārāyana'; and other similar
texts.




23. And as in the analogous case of stones and the like, there is
impossibility of that.

In the same way as it is impossible that the different non-sentient
things such as stones, iron, wood, herbs, &c., which are of an extremely
low constitution and subject to constant change, should be one in nature
with Brahman, which is faultless, changeless, fundamentally antagonistic
to all that is evil, &c. &c.; so it is also impossible that the
individual soul, which is liable to endless suffering, and a mere
wretched glowworm as it were, should be one with Brahman who, as we know
from the texts, comprises within himself the treasure of all auspicious
qualities, &c. &c. Those texts, which exhibit Brahman and the soul in
coordination, must be understood as conveying the doctrine, founded on
passages such as 'of whom the Self is the body,' that as the jīva
constitutes Brahman's body and Brahman abides within the jīva as its
Self, Brahman has the jīva for its mode; and with this doctrine the co-
ordination referred to is not only not in conflict but even confirms it--
as we have shown repeatedly, e.g. under Sū. I, 4, 22. Brahman in all its
states has the souls and matter for its body; when the souls and matter
are in their subtle state Brahman is in its causal condition; when, on
the other hand, Brahman has for its body souls and matter in their gross
state, it is 'effected' and then called world. In this way the co-
ordination above referred to fully explains itself. The world is non-
different from Brahman in so far as it is its effect. There is no
confusion of the different characteristic qualities; for liability to
change belongs to non-sentient matter, liability to pain to sentient
souls, and the possession of all excellent qualities to Brahman: hence
the doctrine is not in conflict with any scriptural text. That even in
the state of non-separation-described in texts such as, 'Being only this
was in the beginning'--the souls joined to non-sentient matter persist
in a subtle condition and thus constitute Brahman's body must
necessarily be admitted; for that the souls at that time also persist in
a subtle form is shown under Sūtras II, I, 34; 35. Non-division, at that
time, is possible in so far as there is no distinction of names and
forms. It follows from all this that Brahman's causality is not contrary
to reason.

Those, on the other hand, who explain the difference, referred to in
Sūtra 22, as the difference between the jīva in its state of bondage and
the jīva in so far as free from avidyā, i.e. the unconditioned Brahman,
implicate themselves in contradictions. For the jiva., in so far as free
from avidyā, is neither all-knowing, nor the Lord of all, nor the cause
of all, nor the Self of all, nor the ruler of all--it in fact possesses
none of those characteristics on which the scriptural texts found the
difference of the released soul; for according to the view in question
all those attributes are the mere figment of Nescience. Nor again can
the Sūtra under discussion be said to refer to the distinction, from the
individual soul, of a Lord fictitiously created by avidyā--a distinction
analogous to that which a man in the state of avidyā makes between the
shell and the silver; for it is the task of the Vedānta to convey a
knowledge of that true Brahman which is introduced as the object of
enquiry in the first Sūtra ('Now then the enquiry into Brahman') and
which is the cause of the origination and so on of the world, and what
they at this point are engaged in is to refute the objections raised
against the doctrine of that Brahman on the basis of Smriti and
Reasoning.--The two Sūtras II, 1, 8; 9 really form a complementary
statement to what is proved in the present adhikarana; for their purport
is to show also that things of different nature can stand to each other
in the relation of cause and effect. And the Sūtra II, 1, 7 has
reference to what is contained in the previous adhikarana.

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'designation of the other.'




24. Should it be said that (it is) not, on account of the observation of
employment; we say, not so; for as in the case of milk.

We have so far determined that it is in no way unreasonable to hold that
the highest Brahman, which is all-knowing, capable of realising its
purposes, &c., has all beings, sentient and non-sentient, for its body,
and hence constitutes the Self of all and differs in nature from
everything else. We now proceed to show that it is not unreasonable to
hold that, possessing all those attributes, it is able to effect by its
mere will and wish the creation of this entire manifold Universe.--But,
it may here be said, it is certainly a matter of observation that agents
of limited power are obliged to employ a number of instrumental agencies
in order to effect their purposes; but how should it follow therefrom
that the view of the all-powerful Brahman producing the world without
such instrumental agencies is in any way irrational?--As, we reply, it
is observed in ordinary life that even such agents as possess the
capability of producing certain effects stand in need of certain
instruments, some slow-witted person may possibly imagine that Brahman,
being destitute of all such instruments, is incapable of creating the
world. It is this doubt which we have to dispel. It is seen that potters,
weavers, &c., who produce jars, cloth, and the like, are incapable of
actually producing unless they make use of certain implements, although
they may fully possess the specially required skill. Men destitute of
such skill are not capable of production, even with the help of
implements; those having the capacity produce by means of the
instruments only. This leads to the conclusion that Brahman also,
although possessing all imaginable powers, is not capable of creating
the world without employing the required instrumental agencies. But
before creation there existed nothing that could have assisted him, as
we know from texts such as 'Being only this was in the beginning';
'there was Nārayana alone.' Brahman's creative agency thus cannot be
rendered plausible; and hence the primā facie view set forth in the
earlier part of the Sūtra, 'Should it be said that (it is) not; on
account of the observation of employment (of instruments).'

This view is set aside by the latter part of the Sūtra, 'not so; for as
in the case of milk.' It is by no means a fact that every agent capable
of producing a certain effect stands in need of instruments. Milk, e.g.
and water, which have the power of producing certain effects, viz. sour
milk and ice respectively, produce these effects unaided. Analogously
Brahman also, which possesses the capacity of producing everything, may
actually do so without using instrumental aids. The 'for' in the Sūtra
is meant to point out the fact that the proving instances are generally
known, and thus to indicate the silliness of the objection. Whey and
similar ingredients are indeed sometimes mixed with milk, but not to the
end of making the milk turn sour, but merely in order to accelerate the
process and give to the sour milk a certain flavour.




25. And as in the case of the gods and so on, in (their) world.

As the gods and similar exalted beings create, each in his own world,
whatever they require by their mere volition, so the Supreme Person
creates by his mere volition the entire world. That the gods about whose
powers we know from the Veda only (not through perception) are here
quoted as supplying a proving instance, is done in order to facilitate
the comprehension of the creative power of Brahman, which is also known
through the Veda.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the observation of
employment.'




26. Or the consequence of the entire (Brahman entering into the effect),
and stultification of (Brahman's) being devoid of parts.

'Being only was this in the beginning'; 'This indeed was in the
beginning not anything'; 'The Self alone indeed was this in the
beginning'--these and other texts state that in the beginning Brahman
was one only, i.e. without parts--that means: Brahman, in its causal
state, was without parts because then all distinction of matter and
souls had disappeared. This one, non-divided, Brahman thereupon having
formed the resolution of being many divided itself into the aggregate of
material things--ether, air, and so on--and the aggregate of souls from
Brahmā down to blades of grass. This being so, it must be held that the
entire highest Brahman entered into the effected state; that its
intelligent part divided itself into the individual souls, and its non-
intelligent part into ether, air, and so on. This however stultifies all
those often-quoted texts which declare Brahman in its causal state to be
devoid of parts. For although the cause is constituted by Brahman in so
far as having for its body matter and souls in their subtle state, and
the effect by Brahman invested with matter and souls in their gross
state; the difficulty stated above cannot be avoided, since also that
element in Brahman which is embodied is held to enter into the effect.
If, on the other hand, Brahman is without parts, it cannot become many,
and it is not possible that there should persist a part not entering
into the effected state. On the ground of these unacceptable results we
conclude that Brahman cannot be the cause.--This objection the next
Sūtra disposes of.




27. But on account of Scripture; (Brahman's possession of various
powers) being founded upon the word.

The 'but' sets aside the difficulty raised. There is no
inappropriateness; 'on account of Scripture.' Scripture declares on the
one hand that Brahman is not made up of parts, and on the other that
from it a multiform creation proceeds. And in matters vouched for by
Scripture we must conform our ideas to what Scripture actually says.--
But then Scripture might be capable of conveying to us ideas of things
altogether self-contradictory; like as if somebody were to tell us
'Water with fire'!--The Sūtra therefore adds 'on account of its being
founded on the word.' As the possession, on Brahman's part, of various
powers (enabling it to emit the world) rests exclusively on the
authority of the word of the Veda and thus differs altogether from other
matters (which fall within the sphere of the other means of knowledge
also), the admission of such powers is not contrary to reason. Brahman
cannot be either proved or disproved by means of generalisations from
experience.




28. And thus in the Self; for (there are) manifold (powers).

If attributes belonging to one thing were on that account to be ascribed
to other things also, it would follow that attributes observed in non-
sentient things, such as jars and the like, belong also to the
intelligent eternal Self, which is of an altogether different kind. But
that such attributes do not extend to the Self is due to the variety of
the essential nature of things. This the Sūtra expresses in 'for (there
are) manifold (powers).' We perceive that fire, water, and so on, which
are of different kind, possess different powers, viz. heat, and so on:
there is therefore nothing unreasonable in the view that the highest
Brahman which differs in kind from all things observed in ordinary life
should possess innumerous powers not perceived in ordinary things. Thus
Parāsara also--in reply to a question founded on ordinary observation--
viz. 'How can creative energy be attributed to Brahman, devoid of
qualities, pure, &c.?'--declares 'Numberless powers, lying beyond the
sphere of all ordinary thought, belong to Brahman, and qualify it for
creation, and so on; just as heat belongs to fire.' Similarly, Scripture
says, 'what was that wood, what was that tree from which they built
heaven and earth?' &c. (Ri. Samh. X, 81); and 'Brahman was that wood,
Brahman was that tree', and so on.--Objections founded on ordinary
generalisations have no force against Brahman which differs in nature
from all other things.




29. And on account of the defects of his view also.

On his view, i.e. on the view of him who holds the theory of the
Pradhāna or something similar, the imperfections observed in ordinary
things would attach themselves to the Pradhāna also, since it does not
differ in nature from those things. The legitimate conclusion therefore
is that Brahman only which differs in nature from all other things can
be held to be the general cause.

The Pradhāna, moreover, is without parts; how then is it possible that
it should give rise to a manifold world, comprising the 'great principle,'
and so on?--But there _are_ parts of the Pradhāna, viz. Goodness,
Passion, and Darkness!--This we reply necessitates the following
distinction. Does the aggregate of Goodness, Passion, and Darkness
constitute the Pradhāna? or is the Pradhāna the effect of those three?
The latter alternative is in conflict with your own doctrine according
to which the Pradhāna is cause only. It moreover contradicts the number
of tattvas (viz. 24) admitted by you; and as those three gunas also have
no parts one does not see how they can produce an effect. On the former
alternative, the gunas not being composed of parts must be held to
aggregate or join themselves without any reference to difference of
space, and from such conjunction the production of gross effects cannot
result.--The same objection applies to the doctrine of atoms being the
general cause. For atoms, being without parts and spatial distinction of
parts, can join only without any reference to such spatial distinction,
and hence do not possess the power of originating effects.




30. And (the divinity is) endowed with all powers, because that is seen.

The highest divinity which is different in nature from all other things
is endowed with all powers; for scriptural texts show it to be such,
'His high power is revealed as manifold, as essential, and so his
knowledge, force, and action' (Svet. Up. VI, 8). In the same way another
text first declares the highest divinity to differ in nature from
everything else, 'Free from sin, from old age, from death and grief,
from hunger and thirst', and then goes on to represent it as endowed with
all powers, 'realising all its wishes, realising all its intentions', &c.
(Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5). Compare also 'He, consisting of mind, having prana
for his body, whose form is light, who realises his wishes,' &c. (Ch. Up.
III, 14, 2).




31. Not, on account of the absence of organs; this has been explained
(before).

Although the one Brahman is different from all other beings and endowed
with all powers, we yet infer from the text 'Of him there is known no
effect and no instrument,' that as it is destitute of instruments it
cannot produce any effect.--To this objection an answer has already been
given in II, 1, 27; 28, 'on account of its being founded on the word,'
and 'for there are manifold (powers).' That for which the sacred word is
the only means of knowledge, and which is different from all other
things, is capable of producing those effects also of the instrumental
means of which it is destitute. It is in this spirit that Scripture says
'He sees without eyes, he hears without ears, without hands and feet he
hastens and grasps' (Svet. Up. III, 19).--Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'the consequence of the entire (Brahman).'




32. (Brahman is) not (the cause); on account of (the world) having the
nature of what depends on a motive.

Although the Lord, who before creation is alone, is endowed with all
kinds of powers since he differs in nature from all other beings, and
hence is by himself capable of creating the world; we all the same
cannot ascribe to him actual causality with regard to the world; for
this manifold world displays the nature of a thing depending on a motive,
and the Lord has no motive to urge him to creation. In the case of all
those who enter on some activity after having formed an idea of the
effect to be accomplished, there exists a motive in the form of
something beneficial either to themselves or to others. Now Brahman, to
whose essential nature it belongs that all his wishes are eternally
fulfilled, does not attain through the creation of the world any object
not attained before. Nor again is the second alternative possible. For a
being, all whose wishes are fulfilled, could concern itself about others
only with a view to benefitting them. No merciful divinity would create
a world so full, as ours is, of evils of all kind--birth, old age, death,
hell, and so on;--if it created at all, pity would move it to create a
world altogether happy. Brahman thus having no possible motive cannot be
the cause of the world.--This primā facie view is disposed of in the
next Sūtra.




33. But (it is) mere sport, as in ordinary life.

The motive which prompts Brahman--all whose wishes are fulfilled and who
is perfect in himself--to the creation of a world comprising all kinds
of sentient and non-sentient beings dependent on his volition, is
nothing else but sport, play. We see in ordinary life how some great
king, ruling this earth with its seven dvīpas, and possessing perfect
strength, valour, and so on, has a game at balls, or the like, from no
other motive than to amuse himself; hence there is no objection to the
view that sport only is the motive prompting Brahman to the creation,
sustentation, and destruction of this world which is easily fashioned by
his mere will.




34. Not inequality and cruelty, on account of there being regard; for so
(Scripture) declares.

It must indeed be admitted that the Lord, who differs in nature from all
other beings, intelligent and non-intelligent, and hence possesses
powers unfathomable by thought, is capable of creating this manifold
world, although before creation he is one only and without parts. But
the assumption of his having actually created the world would lay him
open to the charge of partiality, in so far as the world contains beings
of high, middle, and low station--gods, men, animals, immovable beings;
and to that of cruelty, in so far as he would be instrumental in making
his creatures experience pain of the most dreadful kind.--The reply to
this is 'not so, on account of there being regard'; i.e. 'on account of
the inequality of creation depending on the deeds of the intelligent
beings, gods, and so on, about to be created.'--Sruti and Smriti alike
declare that the connexion of the individual souls with bodies of
different kinds--divine, human, animal, and so on--depends on the karman
of those souls; compare 'He who performs good works becomes good, he who
performs bad works becomes bad. He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by
bad deeds' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 5). In the same way the reverend Parāsara
declares that what causes the difference in nature and status between
gods, men, and so on, is the power of the former deeds of the souls
about to enter into a new creation--'He (the Lord) is the operative
cause only in the creation of new beings; the material cause is
constituted by the potentialities of the beings to be created. The being
to be embodied requires nothing but an operative cause; it is its own
potentiality which leads its being into that condition of being (which
it is to occupy in the new creation).' Potentiality here means karman.




35. If it be said 'not so, on account of non-distinction of deeds'; we
say, 'not so, on account of beginninglessness'; this is reasonable, and
it is also observed.

But before creation the individual souls do not exist; since Scripture
teaches non-distinction 'Being only this was in the beginning.' And as
then the souls do not exist, no karman can exist, and it cannot
therefore be said that the inequality of creation depends on karman.--Of
this objection the Sūtra disposes by saying 'on account of
beginninglessness,' i.e. although the individual souls and their deeds
form an eternal stream, without a beginning, yet non-distinction of them
'is reasonable' (i.e. may reasonably be asserted) in so far as, previous
to creation, the substance of the souls abides in a very subtle
condition, destitute of names and forms, and thus incapable of being
designated as something apart from Brahman, although in reality then
also they constitute Brahman's body only. If it were not admitted (that
the distinctions in the new creation are due to karman), it would
moreover follow that souls are requited for what they have not done, and
not requited for what they have done. The fact of the souls being
without a beginning is observed, viz., to be stated in Scripture,'The
intelligent one is not born and dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18); so also
the fact of the flow of creation going on from all eternity, 'As the
creator formed sun and moon formerly.' Moreover, the text, 'Now all this
was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name' (Bri. Up. I,
4, 7), states merely that the names and forms of the souls were
developed, and this shows that the souls themselves existed from the
beginning. Smriti also says, 'Dost thou know both Prakriti and the soul
to be without beginning?' (Bha. Gī. XIII, 19.)--As Brahman thus differs
in nature from everything else, possesses all powers, has no other
motive than sport, and arranges the diversity of the creation in
accordance with the different karman of the individual souls, Brahman
alone can be the universal cause.




36. And because all the attributes are proved (to be present in Brahman).

As all those attributes required to constitute causality which have been
or will be shown to be absent in the Pradhāna, the atoms, and so on, can
be shown to be present in Brahman, it remains a settled conclusion that
Brahman only is the cause of the world. Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'that which has the nature of depending on a motive.'




SECOND PĀDA.

1. Not that which is inferred, on account of the impossibility of
construction, and on account of activity.

The Sūtras have so far set forth the doctrine that the highest Brahman
is the cause of the origination and so on of the world, and have refuted
the objections raised by others. They now, in order to safeguard their
own position, proceed to demolish the positions held by those very
adversaries. For otherwise it might happen that some slow-witted persons,
unaware of those other views resting on mere fallacious arguments, would
imagine them possibly to be authoritative, and hence might be somewhat
shaken in their belief in the Vedic doctrine. Another pāda therefore is
begun to the express end of refuting the theories of others. The
beginning is made with the theory of Kapila, because that theory has
several features, such as the view of the existence of the effect in the
cause, which are approved of by the followers of the Veda, and hence is
more likely, than others, to give rise to the erroneous view of its
being the true doctrine. The Sūtras I, 1, 5 and ff. have proved only
that the Vedic texts do not set forth the Sānkhya view, while the task
of the present pāda is to demolish that view itself: the Sūtras cannot
therefore be charged with needless reiteration.

The outline of the Sānkhya doctrine is as follows. 'There is the
fundamental Prakriti, which is not an effect; there are the seven
effects of Prakriti, viz. the Mahat and so on, and the sixteen effects
of those effects; and there is the soul, which is neither Prakriti nor
effect'--such is the comprehensive statement of the principles. The
entity called 'fundamental Prakriti' is constituted by the three
substances called Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, (when) in a state of
complete equipoise, none of the three being either in defect or in
excess; the essential nature of those three consists respectively in
pleasure, pain, and dullness; they have for their respective effects
lightness and illumination, excitement and mobility, heaviness and
obstruction; they are absolutely non-perceivable by means of the senses,
and to be defined and distinguished through their effects only. Prakriti,
consisting in the equipoise of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas is one, itself
non-sentient but subserving the enjoyment and final release of the many
sentient beings, eternal, all-pervading, ever active, not the effect of
anything, but the one general cause. There are seven Principles which
are the effects of Prakriti and the causal substances of everything else;
these seven are the Mahat, the ahankāra, the subtle matter (tanmātra) of
sound, the subtle matter of touch, the subtle matter of colour, the
subtle matter of taste, and the subtle matter of smell. The ahankāra is
threefold, being either modified (vaikārika), or active (taijasa), or
the originator of the elements (bhūtādi).

The vaikārika is of sattva-nature and the originator of the sense--
organs; the bhūtādi is of tamas--nature, and the cause of those subtle
matters (tanmātra) which in their turn are the cause of the gross
elements; the taijasa is of the nature of ragas, and assists the other
two. The five gross elements are the ether and so on; the five
intellectual senses are hearing and so on; the five organs of action are
speech and so on. With the addition of the internal organ (manas) these
are the sixteen entities which are mere effects.--The soul, not being
capable of any change, is not either the causal matter or the effect of
anything. For the same reason it is without attributes, consisting of
mere intelligence, eternal, non-active, all-pervading, and different in
each body. Being incapable of change and non-active, it can neither be
an agent nor an enjoyer; but although this is so, men in their confusion
of mind, due to the closeness to each other of Prakriti and the soul,
erroneously attribute to Prakriti the intelligence of the soul, and to
the soul the activity of Prakriti--just as the redness of the rose
superimposes itself on the crystal near it,--and thus consider the soul
to be an 'I' and an enjoyer. Fruition thus results from ignorance, and
release from knowledge of the truth. This their theory the Sānkhyas
prove by means of perception, inference, and authoritative tradition.
Now with regard to those matters which are proved by perception, we
Vedāntins have no very special reason for dissenting from the Sānkhyas;
and what they say about their authoritative tradition, claiming to be
founded on the knowledge of all-knowing persons such as Kapila, has been
pretty well disproved by us in the first adhyāya. If, now, we further
manage to refute the inference which leads them to assume the Pradhāna
as the cause of the--world, we shall have disestablished their whole
theory. We therefore proceed to give this refutation.

On this point the Sānkhyas reason as follows. It must necessarily be
admitted that the entire world has one cause only; for if effects were
assumed to originate from several causes we should never arrive at an
ultimate cause. Assume that parts such as e.g. threads produce a whole
(i.e. in the case of threads, a piece of cloth) in the way of their
being joined together by means of their six sides, which are parts of
the threads. You must then further assume that the threads themselves
are in the same way produced by their parts, having a similar
constitution. And these parts again by their parts, until you reach the
atoms; these also must be assumed to produce their immediate effects by
being joined together with their six sides, for otherwise solid
extension (prathiman) could not be brought about. And then the atoms
also as being wholes, consisting of parts [FOOTNOTE 482:1], must be
viewed as produced by their parts, and these again by their parts and so
on, so that we never arrive at an ultimate cause. In order therefore to
establish such an ultimate cause we must have recourse to the hypothesis
of the general cause being constituted by one substance, which possesses
the power of transforming itself in various different ways, without at
the same time forfeiting its own essential nature, and which forms the
general substrate for an infinity of different effects, from the Mahat
downwards. This one general cause is the Pradhāna constituted by the
equipoise of the three gunas. The reasons for the assumption of this
Pradhāna are as follows:--'On account of the limitedness of particular
things; of connexion (anvaya); of activity proceeding from special power;
and of the difference and non-difference of cause and effect--the Non-
evolved (Pradhāna) is the general cause of this many-natured Universe'
(vaisvarūpya) (Sānkhya Kā. I, 15; 16).--The term 'vaisvarūpya' denotes
that which possesses all forms, i.e. the entire world with its variously
constituted parts--bodies, worlds, and so on. This world, which on
account of its variegated constitution must be held to be an effect, has
for its cause the Unevolved (avyakta = Prakriti), which is of the same
nature as the world. Why so? Because it is an effect; for we perceive
that every effect is different from its special cause--which has the
same nature as the effect--and at the same time is non-different. Such
effected things as e.g. a jar and a gold ornament are different from
their causes, i.e. clay and gold, which have the same nature as the
effects, and at the same time non-different. Hence the manifold-natured
world originates from the Pradhāna which has the same nature, and is
again merged in it: the world thus has the Pradhāna alone for its cause.
This Pradhāna is constituted by the equipoise of the three gunas, and
thus is a cause possessing a nature equal to that of its effect, i.e.
the world; for the world is of the nature of pleasure, pain, and
dullness, which consist of sattva, rajas, and tamas respectively. The
case is analogous to that of a jar consisting of clay; of that also the
cause is none other than the substance clay. For in every case
observation shows that only such causal substances as are of the same
nature as the effects possess that power which is called the origination
of the effect. That the general cause can be found only in the unevolved
Pradhāna, which consists of the three gunas in a state of equipoise and
is unlimited with regard to space as well as time, follows from the
limitedness of the particular things, viz. the Mahat, the ahankāra, and
so on. These latter things are limited like jars and so on, and hence
incapable of originating the entire world. Hence it follows that this
world, consisting of the three gunas, has for its only cause the
Pradhāna, which is constituted by those three gunas in a state of
equipoise.

Against this argumentation the Sūtra says, 'Not that which is inferred,
on account of the impossibility of construction, and on account of
activity.'--'Inference' means 'that which is inferred,' i.e. the
Pradhāna. The Pradhāna postulated by you is not capable of constructing
this manifold-natured world, because while itself being non-intelligent
it is not guided by an intelligent being understanding its nature.
Whatever is of this latter kind is incapable of producing effects; as e.
g. wood and the like by themselves are not capable of constructing a
palace or a carriage. As it is matter of observation that non-
intelligent wood, not guided by an intelligent agent understanding its
nature, cannot produce effects; and as it is observed that if guided by
such an agent matter does enter on action so as to produce effects; the
Pradhāna, which is not ruled by an intelligent agent, cannot be the
general cause. The 'and' in the Sūtra is meant to add as a further
argument that 'presence' (anvaya) has no proving force. For whiteness
present in cows and so on is not invariably accompanied by the quality
of being the cause of the class characteristics of cows. Nor must it be
said that qualities such as whiteness, although present in the effect,
may not indeed be causes, but that substances such as gold and the like
which are present in certain effects are invariably accompanied by the
quality of being causes, and that hence also the substances called
sattva, rajas, and tamas, which are found present in all effects, are
proved to be the causes of all those effects. For sattva and so on are
attributes of substances, but not themselves substances. Sattva and so
on are the causes of the lightness, light, &c.. belonging to substances
such as earth and the like, and hence distinctive attributes of the
essential nature of those substances, but they are not observed to be
present in any effects in a substantial form, as clay, gold, and other
substances are. It is for this reason that they are known as 'gunas.'
You have further said that the world's having one cause only must be
postulated in order that an ultimate cause may be reached. But as the
sattva, rajas, and tamas are not one but three, you yourself do not
assume one cause, and hence do not manage to arrive at an ultimate cause.
For your Pradhāna consists in the equipoise of the three gunas; there
are thus several causes, and you have no more an ultimate cause than
others. Nor can you say that this end is accomplished through the three
gunas being unlimited. For if the three gunas are all alike unlimited,
and therefore omnipresent, there is nowhere a plus or minus of any of
them, and as thus no inequality can result, effects cannot originate. In
order to explain the origination of results it is therefore necessary to
assume limitation of the gunas.

Nor is our view confirmed by those cases only in which it is clearly
perceived that matter produces effects only when guided by an
intelligent principle; other cases also (where the fact is not perceived
with equal clearness) are in favour of our view. This the next Sūtra
declares.

[FOOTNOTE 482:1. As follows from their having six sides.]




2. If it be said--like milk or water; there also (intelligence guides).

What has been said--the Sānkhya rejoins--as to the impossibility of the
Pradhāna not guided by an intelligent principle constructing this
variously constituted world, is unfounded; for the Pradhāna may be
supposed to act in the same way as milk and water do. Milk, when turning
into sour milk, is capable of going by itself through a series of
changes: it does not therefore depend on anything else. In the same way
we observe that the homogeneous water discharged from the clouds
spontaneously proceeds to transform itself into the various saps and
juices of different plants, such as palm trees, mango trees, wood-apple
trees, lime trees, tamarind trees, and so on. In the same way the
Pradhāna, of whose essential nature it is to change, may, without being
guided by another agent, abide in the interval between two creations in
a state of homogeneousness, and then when the time for creation comes
modify itself into many various effects due to the loss of equilibrium
on the part of the gunas. As has been said '(the Pradhāna acts), owing
to modification, as water according to the difference of the abodes of
the several gunas' (Sānkhya Kā. I, 16). In this way the Unevolved acts
independently of anything else.

To this reasoning the Sūtra replies 'there also.' Also, in the instances
of milk and water, activity is not possible in the absence of an
intelligent principle, for these very cases have already been referred
to as proving our position. The Sūtra II, 1, 24 (where the change of
milk into sour milk is instanced) meant to prove only that a being
destitute of other visible instruments of action is able to produce its
own special effect, but not to disprove the view of all agency
presupposing an intelligent principle. That even in water and so on an
intelligent principle is present is proved by scriptural texts, 'he who
dwells in water' and so on.




3. And because from the independence (of the Pradhāna) there would
follow the non-existence of what is different (from creation, i.e. of
the pralaya condition).

That the Pradhāna which is not guided by an intelligent principle is not
the universal cause is proved also by the fact that, if we ascribe to it
a power for change independent of the guidance of a Lord capable of
realising all his purposes, it would follow that the pralaya state,
which is different from the state of creation, would not exist; while on
the other hand the guidance of the Pradhāna by a Lord explains the
alternating states of creation and pralaya as the effects of his
purposes. Nor can the Sānkhya retort that our view gives rise to similar
difficulties in so far, namely, as the Lord, all whose wishes are
eternally accomplished, who is free from all imperfection, &c. &c.,
cannot be the originator of either creation or pralaya, and as the
creation of an unequal world would lay him open to the charge of
mercilessness. For, as explained before, even a being perfect and
complete may enter on activity for the sake of sport; and as the reason
for a particular creation on the part of an all-knowing Lord may be his
recognition of Prakriti having reached a certain special state, it is
the deeds of the individual souls which bring about the inequalities in
the new creation.--But if this is so, all difference of states is caused
exclusively by the good and evil deeds of the individual souls; and what
position remains then for a ruling Lord? Prakriti, impressed by the good
and evil deeds of the souls, will by herself modify herself on such
lines as correspond to the deserts of the individual souls; in the same
way as we observe that food and drink, if either vitiated by poison or
reinforced by medicinal herbs and juices, enter into new states which
render them the causes of either pleasure or pain. Hence all the
differences between states of creation and pralaya, as also the
inequalities among created beings such as gods, men, and so on, and
finally the souls reaching the condition of Release, may be credited to
the Pradhāna, possessing as it does the capability of modifying itself
into all possible forms!--You do not, we reply, appear to know anything
about the nature of good and evil works; for this is a matter to be
learned from the Sastra. The Sastra is constituted by the aggregate of
words called Veda, which is handed on by an endless unbroken succession
of pupils learning from qualified teachers, and raised above all
suspicion of imperfections such as spring from mistake and the like. It
is the Veda which gives information as to good and evil deeds, the
essence of which consists in their pleasing or displeasing the Supreme
Person, and as to their results, viz. pleasure and pain, which depend on
the grace or wrath of the Lord. In agreement herewith the Dramidākārya
says, 'From the wish of giving rise to fruits they seek to please the
Self with works; he being pleased is able to bestow fruits, this is the
purport of the Sāstra.' Thus Sruti also says, 'Sacrifices and pious
works which are performed in many forms, all that he bears (i.e. he
takes to himself); be the navel of the Universe' (Mahānār. Up. I, 6).
And in the same spirit the Lord himself declares,'From whom there
proceed all beings, by whom all this is pervaded--worshipping him with
the proper works man attains to perfection' (Bha. Gī. XVIII, 46); and
'These evil and malign haters, lowest of men, I hurl perpetually into
transmigrations and into demoniac wombs' (Bha. Gī. XVI, 19). The divine
Supreme Person, all whose wishes are eternally fulfilled, who is all-
knowing and the ruler of all, whose every purpose is immediately
realised, having engaged in sport befitting his might and greatness and
having settled that work is of a twofold nature, such and such works
being good and such and such being evil, and having bestowed on all
individual souls bodies and sense-organs capacitating them for entering
on such work and the power of ruling those bodies and organs; and having
himself entered into those souls as their inner Self abides within them,
controlling them as an animating and cheering principle. The souls, on
their side, endowed with all the powers imparted to them by the Lord and
with bodies and organs bestowed by him, and forming abodes in which he
dwells, apply themselves on their own part, and in accordance with their
own wishes, to works either good or evil. The Lord, then, recognising
him who performs good actions as one who obeys his commands, blesses him
with piety, riches, worldly pleasures, and final release; while him who
transgresses his commands he causes to experience the opposites of all
these. There is thus no room whatever for objections founded on
deficiency, on the Lord's part, of independence in his dealings with men,
and the like. Nor can he be arraigned with being pitiless or merciless.
For by pity we understand the inability, on somebody's part, to bear the
pain of others, coupled with a disregard of his own advantage. When pity
has the effect of bringing about the transgression of law on the part of
the pitying person, it is in no way to his credit; it rather implies the
charge of unmanliness (weakness), and it is creditable to control and
subdue it. For otherwise it would follow that to subdue and chastise
one's enemies is something to be blamed. What the Lord himself aims at
is ever to increase happiness to the highest degree, and to this end it
is instrumental that he should reprove and reject the infinite and
intolerable mass of sins which accumulates in the course of beginning
and endless aeons, and thus check the tendency on the part of individual
beings to transgress his laws. For thus he says: 'To them ever devoted,
worshipping me in love, I give that means of wisdom by which they attain
to me. In mercy only to them, dwelling in their hearts, do I destroy the
darkness born of ignorance with the brilliant light of knowledge' (Bha.
Gī. X, 10, 11).--It thus remains a settled conclusion that the Pradhāna,
which is not guided by an intelligent principle, cannot be the general
cause.--Here a further objection is raised. Although Prakriti, as not
being ruled by an intelligent principle, is not capable of that kind of
activity which springs from effort, she may yet be capable of that kind
of activity which consists in mere transformation. For we observe
parallel cases; the grass and water e.g. which are consumed by a cow
change on their own account into milk. In the same way, then, Prakriti
may on her own account transform herself into the world.--To this the
next Sūtra replies.




4. Nor like grass and so on; because (milk) does not exist elsewhere.

This argumentation does not hold good; for as grass and the like do not
transform themselves without the guidance of an intelligent principle,
your proving instance is not established.--But why is it not established?--
'Because it does not exist elsewhere.' If grass, water and so on changed
into milk even when consumed by a bull or when not consumed at all, then
indeed it might be held that they change without the guidance of an
intelligent principle. But nothing of the kind takes place, and hence we
conclude that it is the intelligent principle only which turns the grass
eaten by the cow into milk.--This point has been set forth above under
Sūtra 3; the present Sūtra is meant to emphasise and particularise it.




5. And if you say--as the man and the stone; thus also.

Here the following view might be urged. Although the soul consists of
mere intelligence and is inactive, while the Pradhāna is destitute of
all power of thought; yet the non-sentient Pradhāna may begin to act
owing to the mere nearness of the soul. For we observe parallel
instances. A man blind but capable of motion may act in some way, owing
to the nearness to him of some lame man who has no power of motion but
possesses good eyesight and assists the blind man with his intelligence.
And through the nearness of the magnetic stone iron moves. In the same
way the creation of the world may result from the connexion of Prakriti
and the soul. As has been said, 'In order that the soul may know the
Pradhāna and become isolated, the connexion of the two takes place like
that of the lame and the blind; and thence creation springs' (Sānkhya Kā.
21). This means--to the end that the soul may experience the Pradhāna,
and for the sake of the soul's emancipation, the Pradhāna enters on
action at the beginning of creation, owing to the nearness of the soul.

To this the Sūtra replies 'thus also.' This means--the inability of the
Pradhāna to act remains the same, in spite of these instances. The lame
man is indeed incapable of walking, but he possesses various other
powers--he can see the road and give instructions regarding it; and the
blind man, being an intelligent being, understands those instructions
and directs his steps accordingly. The magnet again possesses the
attribute of moving towards the iron and so on. The soul on the other
hand, which is absolutely inactive, is incapable of all such changes. As,
moreover, the mere nearness of the soul to the Pradhāna is something
eternal, it would follow that the creation also is eternal. If, on the
other hand, the soul is held to be eternally free, then there can be no
bondage and no release.




6. And on account of the impossibility of the relation of principal (and
subordinate) matter.

You Sānkhyas maintain that the origination of the world results from a
certain relation between principal and subordinate entities which
depends on the relative inferiority and superiority of the gunas--
'according to the difference of the abodes of the several gunas'
(Sānkhya Kā. I, 16).

But, as in the pralaya state the three gunas are in a state of equipoise,
none of them being superior or inferior to the others, that relation of
superiority and subordination cannot then exist, and hence the world
cannot originate. Should it, on the other hand, be maintained that even
in the pralaya state there is a certain inequality, it would follow
therefrom that creation is eternal.




7. And if another inference be made (the result remains unchanged), on
account of (the Pradhāna) being destitute of the power of a knowing
subject.

Even if the Pradhāna were inferred by some reasoning different from the
arguments so far refuted by us, our objections would remain in force
because, anyhow, the Pradhāna is devoid of the power of a cognising
subject. The Pradhāna thus cannot be established by any mode of
inference.




8. And even if it be admitted; on account of the absence of a purpose.

Even if it were admitted that the Pradhāna is established by Inference,
the Sānkhya theory could not be accepted for the reason that the
Pradhāna is without a purpose. For, according to the view expressed in
the passage, 'In order that the soul may know the Pradhāna and become
isolated' (Sānkhya Kā. I, 21), the purpose of the Pradhāna is fruition
and final release on the part of the soul; but both these are impossible.
For, as the soul consists of pure intelligence, is inactive, changeless,
and spotless, and hence eternally emancipated, it is capable neither of
fruition which consists in consciousness of Prakriti, nor of Release
which consists in separation from Prakriti. If, on the other hand, it be
held that the soul constituted as described is, owing to the mere
nearness of Prakriti, capable of fruition, i.e. of being conscious of
pleasure and pain, which are special modifications of Prakriti, it
follows that, as Prakriti is ever near, the soul will never accomplish
emancipation.




9. And (it is) objectionable on account of the contradictions.

The Sānkhya-system, moreover, labours from many internal contradictions.--
The Sānkhyas hold that while Prakriti is for the sake of another and the
object of knowledge and fruition, the soul is independent, an enjoying
and knowing agent, and conscious of Prakriti; that the soul reaches
isolation through the instrumentality of Prakriti only, and that as its
nature is pure, permanent, unchanging consciousness, absence of all
activity and isolation belong to that nature; that for this reason the
accomplishing of the means of bondage and release and of release belong
to Prakriti only; and that, owing to Prakriti's proximity to the
unchanging non-active soul, Prakriti, by a process of mutual
superimposition (adhyāsa), works towards the creation of a world and
subserves the purposes of the soul's fruition and emancipation.--'Since
the aggregate of things is for the sake of another; since there is an
opposite of the three gunas and the rest; since there is superintendence;
since there is an experiencing subject; and since there is activity for
the sake of isolation; the soul exists' (Sānkhya Kā. 17); 'And from that
contrast the soul is proved to be a witness, isolated, neutral,
cognising and inactive' (18).--And after having stated that the activity
of the Pradhāna is for the purpose of the release of the Self, the text
says, 'therefore no (soul) is either bound or released, nor does it
migrate; it is Prakriti which, abiding in various beings, is bound and
released and migrates' (62). And 'From this connexion therewith (i.e.
with the soul) the non-intelligent appears as intelligent; and although
all agency belongs to the gunas, the indifferent (soul) becomes an agent.
In order that the soul may know the Pradhāna and become isolated, the
connexion of the two takes place like that of the lame and the blind;
and thence creation springs' (20, 21).--Now to that which is eternally
unchanging, non-active and isolated, the attributes of being a witness
and an enjoying and cognising agent can in no way belong. Nor also can
such a being be subject to error resting on superimposition; for error
and superimposition both are of the nature of change. And, on the other
hand, they also cannot belong to Prakriti, since they are attributes of
intelligent beings. For by superimposition we understand the attribution,
on the part of an intelligent being, of the qualities of one thing to
another thing; and this is the doing of an intelligent being, and
moreover a change. Nor is it possible that superimposition and the like
should take place in the soul only if it is in approximation to Prakriti.--
They may take place just on account of the non-changing nature of the
soul!--Then, we reply, they would take place permanently. And that mere
proximity has no effective power we have already shown under II, 1, 4.
And if it is maintained that it is Prakriti only that migrates, is bound
and released, how then can she be said to benefit the soul, which is
eternally released? That she does so the Sānkhyas distinctly assert, 'By
manifold means Prakriti, helpful and endowed with the gunas, without any
benefit to herself, accomplishes the purpose of the soul, which is
thankless and not composed of the gunas' (Sānkhya Kā. 60).--The Sānkhyas
further teach that Prakriti, on being seen by any soul in her true
nature, at once retires from that soul--'As a dancer having exhibited
herself on the stage withdraws from the soul, so Prakriti withdraws from
the soul when she has manifested herself to it' (59); 'My opinion is
that there exists nothing more sensitive than Prakriti, who knowing "I
have been seen" does not again show itself to the soul' (61). But this
doctrine also is inappropriate. For, as the soul is eternally released
and above all change, it never sees Prakriti, nor does it attribute to
itself her qualities; and Prakriti herself does not see herself since
she is of non-intelligent nature; nor can she wrongly impute to herself
the soul's seeing of itself as her own seeing of herself, for she
herself is non-intelligent and the soul is incapable of that change
which consists in seeing or knowing.--Let it then be said that the
'seeing' means nothing more than the proximity of Prakriti to the soul!--
But this also does not help you; for, as said above, from that there
would follow eternal seeing, since the two are in eternal proximity.
Moreover, the ever unchanging soul is not capable of an approximation
which does not form an element of its unchanging nature.--Moreover, if
you define the seeing as mere proximity and declare this to be the cause
of Release, we point out that it equally is the cause of bondage--so
that bondage and release would both be permanent.--Let it then be said
that what causes bondage is wrong seeing--while intuition of the true
nature of things is the cause of Release!--But as both these kinds of
seeing are nothing but proximity, it would follow that both take place
permanently. And if, on the other hand, the proximity of Soul and
Prakriti were held not to be permanent, then the cause of such proximity
would have to be assigned, and again the cause of that, and so on _ad
infinitum_.--Let us then, to escape from these difficulties, define
proximity as nothing more than the true nature of soul and Prakriti!--As
the true nature is permanent, we reply, it would follow therefrom that
bondage and release would be alike permanent.--On account of all these
contradictory views the system of the Sānkhyas is untenable.

We finally remark that the arguments here set forth by us at the same
time prove the untenableness of the view of those who teach that there
is an eternally unchanging Brahman whose nature is pure, non-differenced
intelligence, and which by being conscious of Nescience experiences
unreal bondage and release. For those philosophers can show no more than
the Sānkhyas do how their Brahman can be conscious of Nescience, can be
subject to adhyāsa, and so on. There is, however, the following
difference between the two theories. The Sānkhyas, in order to account
for the definite individual distribution of birth, death, and so on,
assume a plurality of souls. The Vedāntins, on the other hand, do not
allow even so much, and their doctrine is thus all the more irrational.
The assertion that there is a difference (in favour of the Vedāntins)
between the two doctrines, in so far as the Vedāntins hold Prakriti to
be something unreal, while the Sānkhyas consider it to be real, is
unfounded; for pure, homogeneous intelligence, eternally non-changing,
cannot possibly be conscious of anything different from itself, whether
it be unreal or real. And if that thing is held to be unreal, there
arise further difficulties, owing to its having to be viewed as the
object of knowledge, of refutation, and so on.

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the impossibility of construction.'




10. Or in the same way as the big and long from the short and the atomic.

We have shown that the theory of the Pradhāna being the universal cause
is untenable, since it rests on fallacious arguments, and suffers from
inner contradictions. We shall now prove that the view of atoms
constituting the universal cause is untenable likewise. 'Or in the same
way as the big and long from the short and the atomic' 'Is untenable'
must be supplied from the preceding Sūtra; 'or' has to be taken in the
sense of 'and.' The sense of the Sūtra is--in the same way as the big
and long, i.e. as the theory of ternary compounds originating from the
short and the atomic, i.e. from binary compounds and simple atoms is
untenable, so everything else which they (the Vaiseshikas) maintain is
untenable; or, in other words--as the theory of the world originating
from atoms through binary compounds is untenable, so everything else is
likewise untenable.--Things consisting of parts, as e.g. a piece of
cloth, are produced by their parts, e.g. threads, being joined by means
of the six sides which are parts of those parts. Analogously the atoms
also must be held to originate binary compounds in the way of combining
by means of their six sides; for if the atoms possessed no distinction
of parts (and hence filled no space), a group of even a thousand atoms
would not differ in extension from a single atom, and the different
kinds of extension--minuteness, shortness, bigness, length, &c.--would
never emerge. If, on the other hand, it is admitted that the atoms also
have distinct sides, they have parts and are made up of those parts, and
those parts again are made up of their parts, and so on in infinitum.--
But, the Vaiseshika may object, the difference between a mustard seed
and a mountain is due to the paucity of the constituent parts on the one
hand, and their multitude on the other. If, now, it be held that the
atom itself contains an infinity of parts, the mustard seed and the
mountain alike will contain an infinity of parts, and thus their
inequality cannot be accounted for. We must therefore assume that there
is a limit of subdivision (i.e. that there are real atoms which do not
themselves consist of parts).--Not so, we reply. If the atoms did not
possess distinct parts, there could originate no extension greater than
the extension of one atom (as already shown), and thus neither mustard
seed nor mountain would ever be brought about.--But what, then, are we
to do to get out of this dilemma?--You have only to accept the Vedic
doctrine of the origination of the world.

Others explain the above Sūtra as meant to refute an objection against
the doctrine of Brahman being the general cause. But this does not suit
the arrangement of the Sūtras, and would imply a meaningless iteration.
The objections raised by some against the doctrine of Brahman have been
disposed of in the preceding pāda, and the present pāda is devoted to
the refutation of other theories. And that the world admits of being
viewed as springing from an intelligent principle such as Brahman was
shown at length under II, 1, 4. The sense of the Sūtra, therefore, is
none other than what we stated above.--But what are those other
untenable views to which the Sūtra refers?--To this question the next
Sūtra replies.




11. On both assumptions also there is no motion, and thence non-being
(of the origination of the world).

The atomic theory teaches that the world is produced by the successive
formation of compounds, binary, ternary, and so on, due to the
aggregation of atoms--such aggregation resulting from the motion of the
atoms. The primary motion of the atoms--which are the cause of the
origination of the entire world--is assumed to be brought about by the
unseen principle (adrishta), 'The upward flickering of fire, the sideway
motion of air, the primary motion on the part of atoms and of the manas
are caused by the unseen principle.'--Is then, we ask, this primary
motion of the atoms caused by an adrishta residing in them, or by an
adrishta residing in the souls? Neither alternative is possible. For the
unseen principle which is originated by the good and evil deeds of the
individual souls cannot possibly reside in the atoms; and if it could,
the consequence would be that the atoms would constantly produce the
world. Nor again can the adrishta residing in the souls be the cause of
motion originating in the atoms.--Let it then be assumed that motion
originates in the atoms, owing to their being in contact with the souls
in which the adrishta abides!--If this were so, we reply, it would
follow that the world would be permanently created, for the adrishta, of
the souls forms an eternal stream.-But the adrishta requires to be
matured in order to produce results. The adrishtas of some souls come to
maturity in the same state of existence in which the deeds were
performed; others become mature in a subsequent state of existence only;
and others again do not become mature before a new Kalpa has begun. It
is owing to this dependence on the maturation of the adrishtas that the
origination of the world does not take place at all times.--But this
reasoning also we cannot admit. For there is nothing whatever to
establish the conclusion that all the different adrishtas which spring
from the manifold actions performed at different times, without any
previous agreement, by the infinite multitude of individual Selfs should
reach a state of uniform maturation at one and the same moment of time
(so as to give rise to a new creation). Nor does this view of yours
account for the fact of the entire world being destroyed at the same
time, and remaining in a state of non-maturation for the period of a
dviparārdha.--Nor can you say that the motion of the atoms is due to
their conjunction with (souls whose) adrishta possesses certain specific
qualities imparted to them by the will of the Lord; for by mere
inference the existence of a Lord cannot be proved, as we have shown
under I, 1. The origin of the world cannot, therefore, be due to any
action on the part of the atoms.




12. And because owing to the acknowledgment of samavāya, there results a
_regressus in infinitum_ from equality.

The Vaiseshika doctrine is further untenable on account of the
acknowledgment of samavāya.--Why so?--Because the samavāya also, like
part, quality, and generic characteristics, requires something else to
establish it, and that something else again requires some further thing
to establish it--from which there arises an infinite regress. To explain.
The Vaiseshikas assume the so-called samavāya relation, defining it as
'that connexion which is the cause of the idea "this is here," in the
case of things permanently and inseparably connected, and standing to
each other in the relation of abode and thing abiding in the abode.' Now,
if such a samavāya relation is assumed in order to account for the fact
that things observed to be inseparably connected--as, e.g., class
characteristics are inseparably connected with the individuals to which
they belong--are such, i.e. inseparably connected, a reason has also to
be searched for why the samavāya, which is of the same nature as those
things (in so far, namely, as it is also inseparably connected with the
things connected by it), is such; and for that reason, again, a further
reason has to be postulated, and so on, _in infinitum_. Nor can it be
said that inseparable connexion must be assumed to constitute the
essential nature of samavāya (so that no further reason need be demanded
for its inseparable connexion); for on this reasoning you would have to
assume the same essential nature for class characteristics, qualities,
and so on (which would render the assumption of a samavāya needless for
them also). Nor is it a legitimate proceeding to postulate an unseen
entity such as the samavāya is, and then to assume for it such and such
an essential nature.--These objections apply to the samavāya whether it
be viewed as eternal or non-eternal. The next Sūtra urges a further
objection against it if viewed as eternal.




13. And because (the world also) would thus be eternal.

The samavāya is a relation, and if that relation is eternal that to
which the relation belongs must also be eternal, so that we would arrive
at the unacceptable conclusion that the world is eternal.




14. And on account of (the atoms) having colour and so on, the reverse
(takes place); as it is observed.

From the view that the atoms of four kinds--viz. of earth or water or
fire or air--possess colour, taste, smell, and touch, it would follow
that the atoms are non-eternal, gross, and made up of parts--and this is
the reverse of what the Vaiseshikas actually teach as to their atoms,
viz. that they are eternal, subtle, and not made up of parts. For things
possessing colour, e.g. jars, are non-eternal, because it is observed
that they are produced from other causes of the same, i.e. non-eternal
nature, and so on. To a non-perceived thing which is assumed in
accordance with what is actually perceived, we may not ascribe any
attributes that would be convenient to us; and it is in accordance with
actual experience that you Vaiseshikas assume the atoms to possess
colour and other qualities. Hence your theory is untenable.--Let it then,
in order to avoid this difficulty, be assumed that the atoms do not
possess colour and other sensible qualities. To this alternative the
next Sūtra refers.




15. And as there are objections in both cases.

A difficulty arises not only on the view of the atoms having colour and
other sensible qualities, but also on the view of their being destitute
of those qualities. For as the qualities of effected things depend on
the qualities of their causes, earth, water, and so on, would in that
case be destitute of qualities. And if to avoid this difficulty, it be
held that the atoms do possess qualities, we are again met by the
difficulty stated in the preceding Sūtra. Objections thus arising in
both cases, the theory of the atoms is untenable.




16. And as it is not accepted, it is altogether disregarded.

Kapila's doctrine, although to be rejected on account of it's being in
conflict with Scripture and sound reasoning, yet recommends itself to
the adherents of the Veda on some accounts--as e.g. its view of the
existence of the effect in the cause. Kanāda's theory, on the other hand,
of which no part can be accepted and which is totally destitute of proof,
cannot but be absolutely disregarded by all those who aim at the highest
end of man.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the big and long'.




17. Even on the aggregate with its two causes, there is non-
establishment of that.

We so far have refuted the Vaiseshikas, who hold the doctrine of atoms
constituting the general cause. Now the followers of Buddha also teach
that the world originates from atoms, and the Sūtras therefore proceed
to declare that on their view also the origination, course, and so on,
of the world cannot rationally be accounted for. These Bauddhas belong
to four different classes. Some of them hold that all outward things,
which are either elements (bhūta) or elemental (bhautika), and all
inward things which are either mind (kitta) or mental (kaitta),--all
these things consisting of aggregates of the atoms of earth, water, fire
and air--are proved by means of Perception as well as Inference. Others
hold that all external things, earth, and so on, are only to be inferred
from ideas (vijńāna). Others again teach that the only reality are ideas
to which no outward things correspond; the (so-called) outward things
are like the things seen in dreams. The three schools mentioned agree in
holding that the things admitted by them have a momentary existence only,
and do not allow that, in addition to the things mentioned, viz.
elements and elemental things, mind and mental things, there are certain
further independent entities such as ether, Self, and so on.--Others
finally assert a universal void, i.e. the non-reality of everything.

The Sūtras at first dispose of the theory of those who acknowledge the
real existence of external things. Their opinion is as follows. The
atoms of earth which possess the qualities of colour, taste, touch and
smell; the atoms of water which possess the qualities of colour, taste
and touch; the atoms of fire which possess the qualities of colour and
touch; and the atoms of air which possess the quality of touch only,
combine so as to constitute earth, water, fire and air; and out of the
latter there originate the aggregates called bodies, sense-organs, and
objects of sense-organs. And that flow of ideas, which assumes the form
of the imagination of an apprehending agent abiding within the body, is
what constitutes the so-called Self. On the agencies enumerated there
rests the entire empiric world.--On this view the Sūtra remarks, 'Even
on the aggregate with its two causes, there is non-establishment of
that'. That aggregate which consists of earth and the other elements and
of which the atoms are the cause; and that further aggregate which
consists of bodies, sense-organs and objects, and of which the elements
are the cause--on neither of these two aggregates with their twofold
causes can there be proved establishment of that, i.e. can the
origination of that aggregate which we call the world be rationally
established. If the atoms as well as earth and the other elements are
held to have a momentary existence only, when, we ask, do the atoms
which perish within a moment, and the elements, move towards combination,
and when do they combine? and when do they become the 'objects of states
of consciousness'? and when do they become the abodes of the activities
of appropriation, avoidance and so on (on the part of agents)? and what
is the cognising Self? and with what objects does it enter into contact
through the sense-organs? and which cognising Self cognises which
objects, and at what time? and which Self proceeds to appropriate which
objects, and at what time? For the sentient subject has perished, and
the object of sensation has perished; and the cognising subject has
perished, and the object cognised has perished. And how can one subject
cognise what has been apprehended through the senses of another? and how
is one subject to take to itself what another subject has cognised? And
should it be said that each stream of cognitions is one (whereby a kind
of unity of the cognising subject is claimed to be established), yet
this affords no sufficient basis for the ordinary notions and activities
of life, since the stream really is nothing different from the
constituent parts of the stream (all of which are momentary and hence
discrete).--That in reality the Ego constitutes the Self and is the
knowing subject, we have proved previously.




18. If it be said that (this) is to be explained through successive
causality; we say 'no,' on account of their not being the causes of
aggregation.

'If it be said that through the successive causality of Nescience and so
on, the formation of aggregates and other matters may be satisfactorily
accounted for.' To explain. Although all the entities (acknowledged by
the Bauddhas) have a merely momentary existence, yet all that is
accounted for by avidyā. Avidyā means that conception, contrary to
reality, by which permanency, and so on, are ascribed to what is
momentary, and so on. Through avidyā there are originated desire,
aversion, &c., which are comprised under the general term 'impression'
(samskāra); and from those there springs cognition (vijńāna) which
consists in the 'kindling' of mind; from that mind (kitta) and what is
of the nature of mind (kaitta) and the substances possessing colour, and
so on, viz. earth, water, &c. From that again the six sense-organs,
called 'the six abodes'; from that the body, called 'touch' (sparsa);
from that sensation (vedanā), and so on. And from that again avidyā, and
the whole series as described; so that there is an endlessly revolving
cycle, in which avidyā, and so on, are in turn the causes of the links
succeeding them. Now all this is not possible without those aggregates
of the elements and elemental things which are called earth, and so on;
and thereby the rationality of the formation of those aggregates is
proved.

To this the second half of the Sūtra replies 'Not so, on account of
(their) not being the causes of aggregation'.--This cannot rationally be
assumed, because avidyā, and so on, cannot be operative causes with
regard to the aggregation of earth and the other elements and elemental
things. For avidyā, which consists in the view of permanency and so on,
belonging to what is non-permanent, and desire, aversion and the rest,
which are originated by avidyā cannot constitute the causes of (other)
momentary things entering into aggregation; not any more than the
mistaken idea of shell-silver is the cause of the aggregation of things
such as shells. Moreover, on the Bauddha doctrine, he who views a
momentary thing as permanent himself perishes at the same moment; who
then is the subject in whom the so-called samskāras, i.e. desire,
aversion, and so on, originate? Those who do not acknowledge one
permanent substance constituting the abode of the samskāras have no
right to assume the continuance of the samskāras.




19. And on account of the cessation of the preceding one on the
origination of the subsequent one.

For the following reason also the origination of the world cannot be
accounted for on the view of the momentariness of all existence. At the
time when the subsequent momentary existence originates, the preceding
momentary existence has passed away, and it cannot therefore stand in a
causal relation towards the subsequent one. For if non-existence had
causal power, anything might originate at any time at any place.--Let it
then be said that what constitutes a cause is nothing else but existence
in a previous moment.--But, if this were so, the previous momentary
existence of a jar, let us say, would be the cause of all things
whatever that would be met with in this threefold world in the
subsequent moment-cows, buffaloes, horses, chairs, stones, &c.!--Let us
then say that a thing existing in a previous moment is the cause only of
those things, existing in the subsequent moment, which belong to the
same species.--But from this again it would follow that one jar existing
in the previous moment would be the cause of all jars, to be met with in
any place, existing in the following moment!--Perhaps you mean to say
that one thing is the cause of one subsequent thing only. But how then
are we to know which thing is the cause of which one subsequent thing?--
Well then I say that the momentarily existing jar which exists in a
certain place is the cause of that one subsequent momentary jar only
which exists at the very same place!--Very good, then you hold that a
place is something permanent! (while yet your doctrine is that there is
nothing permanent).--Moreover as, on your theory, the thing which has
entered into contact with the eye or some other sense-organ does no
longer exist at the time when the idea originates, nothing can ever be
the object of a cognition.




20. There not being (a cause), there results contradiction of the
admitted principle; otherwise simultaneousness.

If it be said that the effect may originate even when a cause does not
exist, then--as we have pointed out before--anything might originate
anywhere and at any time. And not only would the origination of the
effect thus remain unexplained, but an admitted principle would also be
contradicted. For you hold the principle that there are four causes
bringing about the origination of a cognition, viz. the adhipati-cause,
the sahakāri-cause, the ālambhana-cause, and the samanantara-cause. The
term adhipati denotes the sense-organs.--And if, in order to avoid
opposition to an acknowledged principle, it be assumed that the
origination of a further momentary jar takes place at the time when the
previous momentary jar still exists, then it would follow that the two
momentary jars, the causal one and the effected one, would be perceived
together; but as a matter of fact they are not so perceived. And,
further, the doctrine of general momentariness would thus be given up.
And should it be said that (this is not so, but that) momentariness
remains, it would follow that the connexion of the sense-organ with the
object and the cognition are simultaneous.




21. There is non-establishment of pratisankhyā and apratisankhyā
destruction, on account of non-interruption.

So far the hypothesis of origination from that which is not has been
refuted. The present Sūtra now goes on to declare that also the absolute
(niranvaya) destruction of that which is cannot rationally be
demonstrated. Those who maintain the momentariness of all things teach
that there are two kinds of destruction, one of a gross kind, which
consists in the termination of a series of similar momentary existences,
and is capable of being perceived as immediately resulting from agencies
such as the blow of a hammer (breaking a jar, e.g.); and the other of a
subtle kind, not capable of being perceived, and taking place in a
series of similar momentary existences at every moment. The former is
called pratisankhyā-destruction; the latter apratisankhyā-destruction.--
Both these kinds of destruction are not possible.--Why?--On account of
the non-interruption, i.e. on account of the impossibility of the
complete destruction of that which is. The impossibility of such
destruction was proved by us under II, 1, 14, where we showed that
origination and destruction mean only the assumption of new states on
the part of one and the same permanent substance, and therefrom proved
the non-difference of the effect from the cause.--Here it may possibly
be objected that as we see that a light when extinguished passes away
absolutely, such absolute destruction may be inferred in other cases
also. But against this we point out that in the case of a vessel of clay
being smashed we perceive that the material, i.e. clay, continues to
exist, and that therefrom destruction is ascertained to be nothing else
but the passing over of a real substance into another state. The proper
assumption, therefore, is that the extinguished light also has passed
over into a different state, and that in that state it is no longer
perceptible may be explained by that state being an extremely subtle one.




22. And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either
case.

It has been shown that neither origination from nothing, as held by the
advocates of general momentariness, is possible; nor the passing away
into nothing on the part of the thing originated. The acknowledgment of
either of these views gives rise to difficulties. If the effect
originates from nothing, it is itself of the nature of nothing; for it
is observed that effects share the nature of what they originate from.
Pitchers and ornaments, e.g. which are produced from clay and gold
respectively, possess the nature of their causal substances. But you
hold yourself that the world is not seen to be of the nature of
nothingness; and certainly it is not observed to be so.--Again, if that
which is underwent absolute destruction, it would follow that after one
moment the entire world would pass away into nothingness; and
subsequently the world again originating from nothingness, it would
follow that, as shown above, it would itself be of the nature of
nothingness (i.e. there would no longer be a _real_ world).--There being
thus difficulties on both views, origination and destruction cannot take
place as described by you.




23. And in the case of space also, on account of there being no
difference.

In order to prove the permanency of external and internal things, we
have disproved the view that the two forms of destruction called
pratisankhyā and apratisankhyā mean reduction of an existing thing to
nothing. This gives us an opportunity to disprove the view of
Ether (space) being likewise a mere irrational non-entity, as the
Bauddhas hold it to be. Ether cannot be held to be a mere irrational non-
entity, because, like those things which are admitted to be positive
existences, i.e. earth, and so on, it is proved by consciousness not
invalidated by any means of proof. For the formation of immediate
judgments such as 'here a hawk flies, and there a vulture,' implies our
being conscious of ether as marking the different places of the flight
of the different birds. Nor is it possible to hold that Space is nothing
else but the non-existence (abhāva) of earth, and so on; for this view
collapses as soon as set forth in definite alternatives. For whether we
define Space as the antecedent and subsequent non-existence of earth,
and so on, or as their mutual non-existence, or as their absolute non-
existence--on none of these alternatives we attain the proper idea of
Space. If, in the first place, we define it as the antecedent and
subsequent non-existence of earth, and so on, it will follow that, as
the idea of Space can thus not be connected with earth and other things
existing at the present moment, the whole world is without Space.

If, in the second place, we define it as the mutual non-existence of
earth, and so on, it will follow that, as such mutual non-existence
inheres in the things only which stand towards each other in the
relation of mutual non-existence, there is no perception of Space in the
intervals between those things (while as a matter of fact there is). And,
in the third place, absolute non-existence of earth, and so on, cannot
of course be admitted. And as non-existence (abhāva) is clearly
conceived as a special state of something actually existing, Space even
if admitted to be of the nature of abhāva, would not on that account be
a futile non-entity (something 'tukcha' or 'nirupākhya').




24. And on account of recognition.

We return to the proof of the, previously mooted, permanence of things.
The 'anusmriti' of the Sūtra means cognition of what was previously
perceived, i.e. recognition. It is a fact that all things which were
perceived in the past may be recognised, such recognition expressing
itself in the form 'this is just that (I knew before).' Nor must you say
that this is a mere erroneous assumption of oneness due to the fact of
the thing now perceived being similar to the thing perceived before, as
in the case of the flame (where a succession of flames continually
produced anew is mistaken for one continuous flame); for you do not
admit that there is one permanent knowing subject that could have that
erroneous idea. What one person has perceived, another cannot judge to
be the same as, or similar to, what he is perceiving himself. If
therefore you hold that there is an erroneous idea of oneness due to the
perception of similarity residing in different things perceived at
different times, you necessarily must acknowledge oneness on the part of
the cognising subject. In the case of the flame there is a valid means
of knowledge to prove that there really is a succession of similar
flames, but in the case of the jar, we are not aware of such a means,
and we therefore have no right to assume that recognition is due to the
similarity of many successive jars.---Perhaps you will here argue as
follows. The momentariness of jars and the like is proved by Perception
as well as Inference. Perception in the first place presents as its
object the present thing which is different from non-present things, in
the same way as it presents the blue thing as different from the yellow;
it is in this way that we know the difference of the present thing from
the past and the future. Inference again proceeds as follows--jars and
the like are momentary because they produce effects and have existence
(sattva); what is non-momentary, such as the horn of a hare, does not
produce effects and does not possess existence. We therefore conclude
from the existence of the last momentary jar that the preceding jar-
existences also are perishable, just because they are momentary
existences like the existence of the last jar.--But both this perception
and this inference have already been disproved by what was said above
about the impossibility of momentary existences standing to one another
in the relation of cause and effect. Moreover, that difference of the
present object from the non-present object which is intimated by
Perception does not prove the present object to be a different _thing_
(from the past object of Perception), but merely its being connected with
the present time. This does not prove it to be a different thing, for
the same thing can be connected with different times. The two reasons
again which were said to prove the momentariness of jars are invalid
because they may be made to prove just the contrary of what they are
alleged to prove. For we may argue as follows--From existence and from
their having effects it follows that jars, and so on, are permanent; for
whatever is non-permanent, is non-existent, and does not produce effects,
as e.g. the horn of a hare. The capacity of producing effects can in
fact be used only to prove non-momentariness on the part of jars, and so
on; for as things perishing within a moment are not capable of acting,
they are not capable of producing effects. Further, as it is seen in the
case of the last momentary existence that its destruction is due to a
visible cause (viz. the blow of a hammer or the like), the proper
conclusion is that also the other momentary jars (preceding the last
one) require visible causes for their destruction; and (as no such causes
are seen, it follows that) the jar is permanent and continuous up to the
time when a destructive cause, such as the blow of a hammer, supervenes.
Nor can it be said that hammers and the like are not the causes of
destruction, but only the causes of the origination of a new series of
momentary existences dissimilar to the former ones--in the case of the
jar, e.g. of a series of momentary fragments of a jar; for we have
proved before that the destruction of jars, and so on, means nothing but
their passing over into a different condition, e.g. that of fragments.
And even if destruction were held to be something different from the
origination of fragments, it would yet be reasonable to infer, on the
ground of immediate succession in time, that the cause of the
destruction is the blow of the hammer.

Hence it is impossible to deny in any way the permanency of things as
proved by the fact of recognition. He who maintains that recognition
which has for its object the oneness of a thing connected with
successive points of time has for its objects different things, might as
well say that several cognitions of, let us say, blue colour have for
their object something different from blue colour. Moreover, for him who
maintains the momentariness of the cognising subject and of the objects
of cognition, it would be difficult indeed to admit the fact of
Inference which presupposes the ascertainment and remembrance of general
propositions. He would in fact not be able to set forth the reason
required to prove his assertion that things are momentary; for the
speaker perishes in the very moment when he states the proposition to be
proved, and another person is unable to complete what has been begun by
another and about which he himself does not know anything.




25. Not from non-entity, this not being observed.

So far we have set forth the arguments refuting the views of the
Vaibhāshikas as well as the Sautrāntikas--both which schools maintain
the reality of external things.--Now the Sautrāntika comes forward and
opposes one of the arguments set forth by us above, viz. that, on the
view of general momentariness, nothing can ever become an object of
cognition, since the thing which enters into connexion with the sense-
organ is no longer in existence when the cognition originates.--It is
not, he says, the persistence of the thing up to the time of cognition
which is the cause of its becoming an object of cognition. To be an
object of cognition means nothing more than to be the cause of the
origination of cognition. Nor does this definition imply that the sense-
organs also are the objects of cognition. For a cause of cognition is
held to be an object of cognition only in so far as it imparts to the
cognition its own form (and this the sense-organs do not). Now even a
thing that has perished may have imparted its form to the cognition, and
on the basis of that form, blue colour, and so on, the thing itself is
inferred. Nor can it be said (as the Yogākāras do) that the form of
subsequent cognitions is due to the action of previous cognitions (and
not to the external thing); for on this hypothesis it could not be
explained how in the midst of a series of cognitions of blue colour
there all at once arises the cognition of yellow colour. The manifold
character of cognitions must therefore be held to be due to the manifold
character of real thing.--To this we reply 'not from non-entity; this
not being observed.' The special forms of cognition, such as blue colour,
and so on, cannot be the forms of things that have perished, and
therefore are not in Being, since this is not observed. For it is not
observed that when a substrate of attributes has perished, its
attributes pass over into another thing. (Nor can it be said that the
thing that perished leaves in cognition a reflection of itself, for)
reflections also are only of persisting things, not of mere attributes.
We therefore conclude that the manifoldness of cognitions can result
from the manifoldness of things only on the condition of the thing
persisting at the time of cognition.--The Sūtras now set forth a further
objection which applies to both schools.




26. And thus there would be accomplishment on the part of non-active
people also.

Thus, i.e. on the theory of universal momentariness, origination from
the non-existent, causeless cognition, and so on, it would follow that
persons also not making any efforts may accomplish all their ends. It is
a fact that the attainment of things desired and the warding off of
things not desired is effected through effort, and so on. But if all
existences momentarily perish, a previously existing thing, or special
attributes of it, such as after-effects (through which Svarga and the
like are effected) or knowledge (through which Release is effected) do
not persist, and hence nothing whatever can be accomplished by effort.
And as thus all effects would be accomplished without a cause, even
perfectly inert men would accomplish all the ends to be reached in this
and in the next life, including final release. Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the aggregates.'




27. Not non-existence, on account of consciousness.

Here now come forward the Yogākāras, who hold that cognitions (ideas)
only are real. There is no reasonable ground, they say, for the view
that the manifoldness of ideas is due to the manifoldness of things,
since ideas themselves--no less than the things assumed by others--have
their distinct forms, and hence are manifold. And this manifold nature
of ideas is sufficiently explained by so-called vāsanā. Vāsanā means a
flow of ideas (states of consciousness--pratyaya) of different character.
We observe, e.g., that a cognition which has the form of a jar (i.e. the
idea of a jar) gives rise to the cognition of the two halves of a jar,
and is itself preceded and produced by the cognition of a jar, and this
again by a similar cognition, and so on; this is what we call a stream
or flow of ideas.--But how, then, is it that internal cognitions have
the forms of external things, mustard-grains, mountains, and so on?--
Even if real things are admitted, the Yogākāra replies, their becoming
objects of thought and speech depends altogether on the light of
knowledge, for otherwise it would follow that there is no difference
between the objects known by oneself and those known by others. And that
cognitions thus shining forth to consciousness have forms (distinctive
characteristics) must needs be admitted; for if they were without form
they could not shine forth. Now we are conscious only of one such form,
viz. that of the cognition; that this form at the same time appears to
us as something external (i.e. as the form of an outward thing) is due
to error. From the general law that we are conscious of ideas and things
together only, it follows that the thing is not something different from
the idea.

As, moreover, the fact of one idea specially representing one particular
thing only, whether it be a jar or a piece of cloth or anything else,
requires for its explanation an equality in character of the idea and
the thing, those also who hold the existence of external things must
needs assume that the idea has a form similar to that of the thing; and
as this suffices for rendering possible practical thought and
intercourse, there is nothing authorising us to assume the existence of
things in addition to the ideas. Hence cognitions only constitute
reality; external things do not exist.

To this the Sūtra replies, 'Not non-existence, on account of
consciousness.' The non-existence of things, apart from ideas, cannot be
maintained, because we are conscious of cognitions as what renders the
knowing subject capable of thought and intercourse with regard to
particular _things_. For the consciousness of all men taking part in
worldly life expresses itself in forms such as 'I know the jar.'
Knowledge of this kind, as everybody's consciousness will testify,
presents itself directly as belonging to a knowing subject and referring
to an object; those therefore who attempt to prove, on the basis of this
very knowledge, that Reality is constituted by mere knowledge, are fit
subjects for general derision. This point has already been set forth in
detail in our refutation of those crypto-Bauddhas who take shelter under
a pretended Vedic theory.--To maintain, as the Yogākāras do, that the
general rule of idea and thing presenting themselves together proves the
non-difference of the thing from the idea, implies a self-contradiction;
for 'going together' can only be where there are different things. To
hold that it is a general rule that of the idea--the essential nature of
which is to make the thing to which it refers capable of entering into
common thought and intercourse--we are always conscious together with
the thing, and then to prove therefrom that the thing is not different
from the idea, is a laughable proceeding indeed. And as, according to
you, cognitions perish absolutely, and do not possess any permanently
persisting aspect, it is rather difficult to prove that such cognitions
form a series in which each member colours or affects the next one
(vāsanā); for how is the earlier cognition, which has absolutely
perished, to affect the later one, which has not yet arisen? We conclude
therefore that the manifoldness of cognitions is due solely to the
manifoldness of things. We are directly conscious of cognitions (ideas)
as rendering the things to which they refer capable of being dealt with
by ordinary thought and speech, and the specific character of each
cognition thus depends on the relation which connects it with a
particular thing. This relation is of the nature of conjunction
(samyoga), since knowledge (cognition) also is a substance. Just as
light (prabhā), although a substance, stands to the lamp in the relation
of an attribute (guna), so knowledge stands in the relation of an
attribute to the Self, but, viewed in itself, it is a substance.--From
all this it follows that external things are not non-existent.

The next Sūtra refutes the opinion of those who attempt to prove the
baselessness of the cognitions of the waking state by comparing them to
the cognitions of a dreaming person.




28. And on account of difference of nature (they are) not like dreams.

Owing to the different nature of dream-cognitions, it cannot be said
that, like them, the cognitions of the waking state also have no things
to correspond to them. For dream-cognitions are originated by organs
impaired by certain defects, such as drowsiness, and are moreover
sublated by the cognitions of the waking state; while the cognitions of
the waking state are of a contrary nature. There is thus no equality
between the two sets.--Moreover, if all cognitions are empty of real
content, you are unable to prove what you wish to prove since your
inferential cognition also is devoid of true content. If, on the other
hand, it be held to have a real content, then it follows that no
cognition is devoid of such content; for all of them are alike
cognitions, just like the inferential cognition.




29. The existence (is) not, on account of the absence of perception.

The existence of mere cognitions devoid of corresponding things is not
possible, because such are nowhere perceived. For we nowhere perceive
cognitions not inherent in a cognising subject and not referring to
objects. That even dream-cognitions are not devoid of real matter we
have explained in the discussion of the different khyātis (above, p.
118).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'perception.'




30. And on account of its being unproved in every way.

Here now come forward the Mādhyamikas who teach that there is nothing
but a universal Void. This theory of a universal Nothing is the real
purport of Sugata's doctrine; the theories of the momentariness of all
existence, &c., which imply the acknowledgment of the reality of things,
were set forth by him merely as suiting the limited intellectual
capacities of his pupils.--Neither cognitions nor external objects have
real existence; the Void (the 'Nothinj') only constitutes Reality, and
final Release means passing over into Non-being. This is the real view
of Buddha, and its truth is proved by the following considerations. As
the Nothing is not to be proved by any argument, it is self-proved. For
a cause has to be assigned for that only which _is_. But what _is_ does
not originate either from that which is or that which is not. We never
observe that which is to originate from Being; for things such as jars,
and so on, do not originate as long as the lump of clay, &c., is non-
destroyed. Nor can Being originate from Non-being; for if the jar were
supposed to originate from Non-being, i.e. that non-being which results
from the destruction of the lump of clay, it would itself be of the
nature of Non-being. Similarly it can be shown that nothing can
originate either from itself or from anything else. For the former
hypothesis would imply the vicious procedure of the explanation
presupposing the thing to be explained; and moreover no motive can be
assigned for a thing originating from itself. And on the hypothesis of
things originating from other things, it would follow that anything
might originate from anything, for all things alike are _other_ things.
And as thus there is no origination there is also no destruction. Hence
the _Nothing_ constitutes Reality: origination, destruction, Being, Non-
being, and so on, are mere illusions (bhrānti). Nor must it be said that
as even an illusion cannot take place without a substrate we must assume
something real to serve as a substrate; for in the same way as an
illusion may arise even when the defect, the abode of the defect, and
the knowing subject are unreal, it also may arise even when the
substrate of the illusion is unreal. Hence the _Nothing_ is the only
reality.--To this the Sūtra replies, 'And on account of its being in
everyway unproved'--the theory of general Nothingness which you hold
cannot stand. Do you hold that everything is being or non-being, or
anything else? On none of these views the Nothingness maintained by you
can be established. For the terms _being_ and _non-being_ and the ideas
expressed by them are generally understood to refer to particular
states of actually _existing_ things only. If therefore you declare
'everything is nothing,' your declaration is equivalent to the
declaration, 'everything is being,' for your statement also can only
mean that everything that _exists_ is capable of abiding in a certain
condition (which you call 'Nothing'). The absolute Nothingness you have
in mind cannot thus be established in any way. Moreover, he who tries to
establish the tenet of universal Nothingness can attempt this in so far
only as,--through some means of knowledge, he has come to know
Nothingness, and he must therefore acknowledge the truth of that means.
For if it were not true it would follow that everything is real. The
view of general Nothingness is thus altogether incapable of proof.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'unprovedness in every way.'




31. Not so, on account of the impossibility in one.

The Bauddhas have been refuted. As now the Jainas also hold the view of
the world originating from atoms and similar views, their theory is
reviewed next.--The Jainas hold that the world comprises souls (jīva),
and non-souls (ajīva), and that there is no Lord. The world further
comprises six substances (dravya), viz. souls (jīva), merit (dharma),
demerit (adharma), bodies (pudgala), time (kāla), and space (ākāsa). The
souls are of three different kinds-bound (in the state of bondage),
perfected by Yoga (Yogasiddha), and released (mukta). 'Merit' is that
particular world-pervading substance which is the cause of the motion of
all things moving; 'demerit' is that all-pervading substance which is
the cause of stationariness, 'Body' is that substance which possesses
colour, smell, taste, and touch. It is of two kinds, atomic or
compounded of atoms; to the latter kind belong wind, fire, water, earth,
the bodies of living creatures, and so on. 'Time' is a particular atomic
substance which is the cause of the current distinction of past, present,
and future. 'Space' is one, and of infinite extent. From among these
substances those which are not atomic are comprehended under the term
'the five astikāyas (existing bodies)'--the astikāya of souls, the
astikāya of merit, the astikāya of demerit, the astikāya of matter, the
astikāya of space. This term 'astikāya' is applied to substances
occupying several parts of space.--They also use another division of
categories which subserves the purpose of Release; distinguishing souls,
non-souls, influx (āsrava), bondage, nijara, samvara, and Release.
_Release_ comprises the means of Release also, viz. perfect knowledge,
good conduct, and so on. The soul is that which has knowledge, seeing,
pleasure, strength (vīrya) for its qualities. Non-soul is the aggregate
of the things enjoyed by the souls. 'Influx' is whatever is instrumental
towards the souls having the fruition of objects, viz. the sense-organs,
and so on.--Bondage is of eight different kinds, comprising the four
ghātikarman, and the four aghātikarman. The former term denotes whatever
obstructs the essential qualities of the soul, viz. knowledge,
intuition, strength, pleasure; the latter whatever causes pleasure,
pain, and indifference, which are due to the persistence of the wrong
imagination that makes the soul identify itself with its body.--'Decay'
means the austerities (tapas), known from the teaching of the Arhat,
which are the means of Release.--Samvara is such deep meditation
(Samādhi) as stops the action of the sense-organs.--Release, finally, is
the manifestation of the Self in its essential nature, free from all
afflictions such as passion, and so on.--The atoms which are the causes
of earth and the other compounds, are not, as the Vaiseshikas and others
hold, of four different kinds, but have all the same nature; the
distinctive qualities of earth, and so on, are due to a modification
(parināma) of the atoms. The Jainas further hold that the whole complex
of things is of an ambiguous nature in so far as being existent and
non-existent, permanent and non-permanent, separate and non-separate. To
prove this they apply their so-called sapta-bhangī-nyāya ('the system of
the seven paralogisms')--'May be, it is'; 'May be, it is not'; 'May be,
it is and is not'; 'May be, it is not predicable'; 'May be, it is and is
not predicable'; 'May be, it is not, and is not predicable'; 'May be, it
is and is not, and is not predicable.' With the help of this they prove
that all things--which they declare to consist of substance (dravya),
and paryāya--to be existing, one and permanent in so far as they are
substances, and the opposite in so far as they are paryāyas. By paryāya
they understand the particular states of substances, and as those are of
the nature of Being as well as Non-being, they manage to prove
existence, non-existence, and so on.--With regard to this the Sūtra
remarks that no such proof is possible,'Not so, on account of the
impossibility in one'; i.e. because contradictory attributes such as
existence and non-existence cannot at the same time belong to one
thing, not any more than light and darkness. As a substance and
particular states qualifying it--and (by the Jainas), called
paryāya--are different things (padārtha), one substance cannot be
connected with opposite attributes. It is thus not possible that a
substance qualified by one particular state, such as existence, should
at the same time be qualified by the opposite state, i. e.
non-existence. The non-permanency, further, of a substance consists in
its being the abode of those particular states which are called
origination and destruction; how then should permanency, which is of an
opposite nature, reside in the substance at the same time? Difference
(bhinnatva) again consists in things being the abodes of contradictory
attributes; non-difference, which is the opposite of this, cannot hence
possibly reside in the same things which are the abode of difference;
not any more than the generic character of a horse and that of a buffalo
can belong to one animal. We have explained this matter at length,
when--under Sūtra I, 1--refuting the bhedābheda-theory. Time we are
conscious of only as an attribute of substances (not as an independent
substance), and the question as to its being and non-being, and so on,
does not therefore call for a separate discussion. To speak of time as
being and non-being in no way differs from generic characteristics
(jāti), and so on, being spoken of in the same way; for--as we have
explained before--of jāti and the like we are conscious only as
attributes of substances.--But (the Jaina may here be supposed to ask
the Vedāntin), how can you maintain that Brahman, although one only, yet
at the same time is the Self of all?--Because, we reply, the whole
aggregate of sentient and non-sentient beings constitutes the body of
the Supreme Person, omniscient, omnipotent, and so on. And that the body
and the person embodied and their respective attributes are of totally
different nature (so that Brahman is not touched by the defects of his
body), we have explained likewise.--Moreover, as your six substances,
soul, and so on, are not one substance and one paryāya, their being one
substance, and so on, cannot be used to prove their being one and also
not one, and so on.--And if it should be said that those six substances
are such (viz. one and several, and so on), each owing to its own
paryāya and its own nature, we remark that then you cannot avoid
contradicting your own theory of everything being of an ambiguous
nature. Things which stand to each other in the relation of mutual
non-existence cannot after all be identical.--Hence the theory of the
Jainas is not reasonable. Moreover it is liable to the same objections
which we have above set forth as applying to all theories of atoms
constituting the universal cause, without the guidance of a Lord.




33. And likewise non-entireness of the Self.

On your view there would likewise follow non-entireness of the Self. For
your opinion is that souls abide in numberless places, each soul having
the same size as the body which it animates. When, therefore, the soul
previously abiding in the body of an elephant or the like has to enter
into a body of smaller size, e. g. that of an ant, it would follow that
as the soul then occupies less space, it would not remain entire, but
would become incomplete.--Let us then avoid this difficulty by assuming
that the soul passes over into a different state--which process is
called paryāya,--which it may manage because it is capable of
contraction and dilatation.--To this the next Sūtra replies.




34. Nor also is there non-contradiction from paryāya; on account of
change, and so on.

Nor is the difficulty to be evaded by the assumption of the soul
assuming a different condition through contraction or dilatation. For
this would imply that the soul is subject to change, and all the
imperfections springing from it, viz. non-permanence, and so on, and
hence would not be superior to non-sentient things such as jars and the
like.




35. And on account of the endurance of the final (size), and the
(resulting) permanency of both; there is no difference.

The final size of the soul, i.e. the size it has in the state of Release,
is enduring since the soul does not subsequently pass into another body;
and both, i.e. the soul in the state of Release and the size of that
soul, are permanent (nitya). From this it follows that that ultimate
size is the true essential size of the soul and also belongs to it
previously to Release. Hence there is no difference of sizes, and the
soul cannot therefore have the size of its temporary bodies. The Ārhata
theory is therefore untenable.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the
impossibility in one.'




36. (The system) of the Lord (must be disregarded), on account of
inappropriateness.

So far it has been shown that the doctrines of Kapila, Kanāda, Sugata,
and the Arhat must be disregarded by men desirous of final beatitude;
for those doctrines are all alike untenable and foreign to the Veda. The
Sūtras now declare that, for the same reasons, the doctrine of Pasupati
also has to be disregarded. The adherents of this view belong to four
different classes--Kāpālas, Kālāmukhas, Pāsupatas, and Saivas. All of
them hold fanciful theories of Reality which are in conflict with the
Veda, and invent various means for attaining happiness in this life and
the next. They maintain the general material cause and the operative
cause to be distinct, and the latter cause to be constituted by Pasupati.
They further hold the wearing of the six so-called 'mudrā' badges and
the like to be means to accomplish the highest end of man.

Thus the Kāpālas say, 'He who knows the true nature of the six mudrās,
who understands the highest mudrā, meditating on himself as in the
position called bhagāsana, reaches Nirvāna. The necklace, the golden
ornament, the earring, the head-jewel, ashes, and the sacred thread are
called the six mudrās. He whose body is marked with these is not born
here again.'--Similarly the Kālāmukhas teach that the means for
obtaining all desired results in this world as well as the next are
constituted by certain practices--such as using a skull as a drinking
vessel, smearing oneself with the ashes of a dead body, eating the flesh
of such a body, carrying a heavy stick, setting up a liquor-jar and
using it as a platform for making offerings to the gods, and the like.
'A bracelet made of Rudrāksha-seeds on the arm, matted hair on the head,
a skull, smearing oneself with ashes, &c.'--all this is well known from
the sacred writings of the Saivas. They also hold that by some special
ceremonial performance men of different castes may become Brāhmanas and
reach the highest āsrama: 'by merely entering on the initiatory ceremony
(dīkshā) a man becomes a Brāhmana at once; by undertaking the kāpāla
rite a man becomes at once an ascetic.'

With regard to these views the Sūtra says 'of pati, on account of
inappropriateness.' A 'not' has here to be supplied from Sūtra 32. The
system of Pasupati has to be disregarded because it is inappropriate, i.
e. because the different views and practices referred to are opposed to
one another and in conflict with the Veda. The different practices
enumerated above, the wearing of the six mudrās and so on, are opposed
to each other; and moreover the theoretical assumptions of those people,
their forms of devotion and their practices, are in conflict with the
Veda. For the Veda declares that Nārāyana who is the highest Brahman is
alone the operative and the substantial cause of the world, 'Nārāyana is
the highest Brahman, Nārāyana is the highest Reality, Nārāyana is the
highest light, Nārāyana is the highest Self'; 'That thought, may I be
many, may I grow forth' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3); 'He desired, may I be many,
may I grow forth' (Taitt. Up. II, 6, 1), and so on. In the same way the
texts declare meditation on the Supreme Person, who is the highest
Brahman, to be the only meditation which effects final release; cp. 'I
know that great Person of sunlike lustre beyond the darkness. A man who
knows him passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up.
III, 8). And in the same way all texts agree in declaring that the works
subserving the knowledge of Brahman are only those sacrificial and other
works which the Veda enjoins on men in the different castes and stages
of life: 'Him Brāhmanas seek to know by the study of the Veda, by
sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting. Wishing for that world only,
mendicants wander forth from their homes' (Bri. Up. XI, 4, 22). In some
texts enjoining devout meditation, and so on, we indeed meet with terms
such as Prajāpati, Siva, Indra, Ākāsa, Prāna, &c., but that these all
refer to the supreme Reality established by the texts concerning
Nārāyana--the aim of which texts it is to set forth the highest Reality
in its purity--, we have already proved under I, 1, 30. In the same way
we have proved under Sū. I, 1, 2 that in texts treating of the creation
of the world, such as 'Being only this was in the beginning,' and the
like, the words _Being_, _Brahman_, and so on, denote nobody else but
Nārāyana, who is set forth as the universal creator in the account of
creation given in the text, 'Alone indeed there was Nārāyana, not Brahmā,
not Isāna--he being alone did not rejoice' (Mahopanishad I).--As the
Pasupati theory thus teaches principles, meditations and acts
conflicting with the Veda, it must be disregarded.




37. And on account of the impossibility of rulership.

Those who stand outside the Veda arrive through inference at the
conclusion that the Lord is a mere operative cause. This being so, they
must prove the Lord's being the ruler (of the material cause) on the
basis of observation. But it is impossible to prove that the Lord is the
ruler of the Pradhāna in the same way as the potter e.g. is the ruler of
the clay. For the Lord is without a body, while the power of ruling
material causes is observed only in the case of embodied beings such as
potters. Nor may you have recourse to the hypothesis of the Lord being
embodied; for--as we have shown under I, 1, 3--there arise difficulties
whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as
eternal or as non-eternal.




38. If you say, as in the case of the organs; we deny this, on account
of enjoyment and so on.

It may possibly be said that, in the same way as the enjoying
(individual) soul, although in itself without a body, is seen to rule
the sense-organs, the body, and so on, the great Lord also, although
without a body, may rule the Pradhāna. But this analogy cannot be
allowed 'on account of enjoyment,' and so on. The body's being ruled by
the soul is due to the unseen principle in the form of good and evil
works, and has for its end the requital of those works. Your analogy
would thus imply that the Lord also is under the influence of an unseen
principle, and is requited for his good and evil works.--The Lord cannot
therefore be a ruler.




39. Finiteness or absence of omniscience.

'Or' here has the sense of 'and.' If the Lord is under the influence of
the adrishta, it follows that, like the individual soul, he is subject
to creation, dissolution, and so on, and that he is not omniscient. The
Pasupati theory cannot therefore be accepted.--It is true that the Sūtra,
'but in case of conflict (with Scripture) it is not to be regarded' (Pū.
Mī. Sū. I, 3, 3), has already established the non-acceptability of all
views contrary to the Veda; the present adhikarana, however, raises this
question again in order specially to declare that the Pasupati theory _is_
contrary to the Veda. Although the Pāsupata and the Saiva systems
exhibit some features which are not altogether contrary to the Veda, yet
they are unacceptable because they rest on an assumption contrary to the
Veda, viz. of the difference of the general, instrumental and material
causes, and imply an erroneous interchange of higher and lower entities.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'Pasupati.'




40. On account of the impossibility of origination.

The Sūtras now proceed to refute a further doubt, viz. that the
Pańkarātra tantra--which sets forth the means of attaining supreme
beatitude, as declared by the Lord (Bhagavat)--may also be destitute of
authority, in so far, namely, as belonging to the same class as the
tantras of Kapila and others. The above Sūtra raises the doubt.

The theory of the Bhāgavatas is that from Vāsudeva, who is the highest
Brahman and the highest cause, there originates the individual soul
called Sankarshana; from Sankarshana the internal organ called Pradyumna;
and from Pradyumna the principle of egoity called Aniruddha. Now this
theory implies the origination of the individual soul, and this is
contrary to Scripture. For scriptural texts declare the soul to be
without a beginning--cp. 'the intelligent one is not born and does not
die' (Ka. Up. II, 18), and other texts.




41. And there is not (origination) of the instrument from the agent.

'The internal organ called Pradyumna originates from Sankarshana,' i. e.
the internal organ originates from the individual soul which is the
agent. But this is inadmissible, since the text 'from him there is
produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) declares
that the mind also springs from none else but the highest Brahman. As
the Bhāgavata doctrine thus teaches things opposed to Scripture, its
authoritativeness cannot be admitted.--Against these objections the next
Sūtra declares itself.




42. Or, if they are of the nature of that which is knowledge and so on,
there is no contradiction to that (i.e. the Bhāgavata doctrine).

The 'or' sets aside the view previously maintained. By 'that which is
knowledge and so on' [FOOTNOTE 524:1] we have to understand the highest
Brahman. If Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are of the nature of
the highest Brahman, then truly there can be no objection to a body of
doctrine which sets forth this relation. The criticism that the
Bhāgavatas teach an inadmissible origination of the individual soul, is
made by people who do not understand that system. What it teaches is
that the highest Brahman, there called Vāsudeva, from kindness to those
devoted to it, voluntarily abides in a fourfold form, so as to render
itself accessible to its devotees. Thus it is said in the Paushkara-
samhitā, 'That which enjoins that Brahmanas have to worship, under its
proper names, the fourfold nature of the Self; that is the authoritative
doctrine.' That this worship of that which is of a fourfold nature means
worship of the highest Brahman, called Vāsudeva, is declared in the
Sātvata-samhitā, 'This is the supreme sāstra, the great Brahmopanishad,
which imparts true discrimination to Brahmawas worshipping the real
Brahman under the name of Vāsudeva.' That highest Brahman, called
Vāsudeva, having for its body the complete aggregate of the six
qualities, divides itself in so far as it is either the 'Subtle'
(sūkshma), or 'division' (vyūha), or 'manifestation' (vibhava), and is
attained in its fulness by the devotees who, according to their
qualifications, do worship to it by means of works guided by knowledge.
'From the worship of the vibhava-aspect one attains to the vyūha, and
from the worship of the vyūha one attains to the "Subtile" called
Vāsudeva, i.e. the highest Brahman'--such is their doctrine. By the
'vibhava' we have to understand the aggregate of beings, such as Rama,
Krishna, &c., in whom the highest Being becomes manifest; by the 'vyūha'
the fourfold arrangement or division of the highest Reality, as Vāsudeva,
Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha; by the 'Subtle' the highest
Brahman itself, in so far as it has for its body the mere aggregate of
the six qualities--as which it is called 'Vāsudeva.' Compare on this
point the Paushkara, 'That body of doctrine through which, by means of
works based on knowledge, one fully attains to the imperishable highest
Brahman, called Vāsudeva,' and so on, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and
Aniruddha are thus mere bodily forms which the highest Brahman
voluntarily assumes. Scripture already declares, 'Not born he is born in
many ways,' and it is this birth--consisting in the voluntary assumption
of bodily form, due to tenderness towards its devotees--which the
Bhāgavata system teaches; hence there lies no valid objection to the
authoritativeness of that system. And as Sankarshana. Pradyumna, and
Aniruddha are the beings ruling over the individual souls, internal
organs and organs of egoity, there can be no objection to their being
themselves denoted by those latter terms, viz. individual soul, and so
on. The case is analogous to that of Brahman being designated, in some
texts, by terms such as ether, breath, and the like.

[FOOTNOTE 524:1. Or 'by that which is knowledge and cause.']




43. And on account of contradiction.

The origination of the jīva is, moreover, distinctly controverted in the
books of the Bhāgavatas also. Thus in the Parama-samhitā 'The nature of
Prakriti consists therein that she is non-sentient, for the sake of
another, eternal, ever-changing, comprising within herself the three
gunas and constituting the sphere of action and experience for all
agents. With her the soul (purusha) is connected in the way of
inseparable association; that soul is known to be truly without
beginning and without end.' And as all Samhitas make similar statements
as to the eternity of the soul, the Pańkarātra doctrine manifestly
controverts the view of the essential nature of the jiva being something
that originates. How it is possible that in the Veda as well as in
common life the soul is spoken of as being born, dying, &c., will be
explained under Sū. II, 3, 17. The conclusion, therefore, is that the
Bhāgavata system also denies the origination of the soul, and that hence
the objections raised on this ground against its authoritativeness are
without any force. Another objection is raised by some. Sāndilya, they
argue, is said to have promulgated the Pańkarātra doctrine because he
did not find a sure basis for the highest welfare of man in the Veda and
its auxiliary disciplines, and this implies that the Pańkarātra is
opposed to the Veda.--his objection, we reply, springs from nothing else
but the mere unreasoning faith of men who do not possess the faintest
knowledge of the teachings of the Veda, and have never considered the
hosts of arguments which confirm that teaching. When the Veda says,
'Morning after morning those speak untruth who make the Agnihotra
offering before sunrise,' it is understood that the censure there passed
on the offering before sunrise is really meant to glorify the offering
after sunrise. We meet with a similar case in the 'bhūma-vidyā' (Ch. Up.
VII, 2). There at the beginning Nārada says, 'I know the Rig-veda, the
Yajur-veda, the Sāma-veda, the Ātharvana as the fourth, the Itihāsa-
purāna as the fifth,' and so on, enumerating all the various branches of
knowledge, and finally summing up 'with all this I know the mantras only,
I do not know the Self.' Now this declaration of the knowledge of the
Self not being attainable through any branch of knowledge except the
knowledge of the Bhūman evidently has no other purpose but to glorify
this latter knowledge, which is about to be expounded. Or else Nārada's
words refer to the fact that from the Veda and its auxiliary disciplines
he had not obtained the knowledge of the highest Reality. Analogous to
this is the case of Sāndilya's alleged objection to the Veda. That the
Bhāgavata doctrine is meant to facilitate the understanding of the sense
of the Veda which by itself is difficult of comprehension, is declared
in the Paramasamhita,'I have read the Vedas at length, together with all
the various auxiliary branches of knowledge. But in all these I cannot
see a clear indication, raised above all doubt, of the way to
blessedness, whereby I might reach perfection'; and 'The wise Lord Hari,
animated by kindness for those devoted to him, extracted the essential
meaning of all the Vedānta-texts and condensed it in an easy form.' The
incontrovertible fact then is as follows. The Lord who is known from the
Vedānta-texts, i.e. Vāsudeva, called there the highest Brahman--who is
antagonistic to all evil, whose nature is of uniform excellence, who is
an ocean, as it were, of unlimited exalted qualities, such as infinite
intelligence, bliss, and so on, all whose purposes come true--perceiving
that those devoted to him, according as they are differently placed in
the four castes and the four stages of life, are intent on the different
ends of life, viz. religious observances, wealth, pleasure, and final
release; and recognising that the Vedas--which teach the truth about his
own nature, his glorious manifestations, the means of rendering him
propitious and the fruits of such endeavour--are difficult to fathom by
all beings other than himself, whether gods or men, since those Vedas
are divided into Rik, Yajus, Sāman, and Atharvan; and being animated by
infinite pity, tenderness, and magnanimity; with a view to enable his
devotees to grasp the true meaning of the Vedas, himself composed the
Pańkarātra-sāstra. The author of the Sūtras (Vyāsa)--who first composed
the Sūtras, the purport of which it is to set forth the arguments
establishing the Vedānta doctrine, and then the Bhārata-samhitā (i.e.
the Mahābhārata) in a hundred thousand slokas in order to support
thereby the teaching of the Veda--himself says in the chapter called
Mokshadharma, which treats of knowledge, 'If a householder, or a
Brahmakārin, or a hermit, or a mendicant wishes to achieve success, what
deity should he worship?' and so on; explains then at great length the
Pańkarātra system, and then says, 'From the lengthy Bhārata story,
comprising one hundred thousand slokas, this body of doctrine has been
extracted, with the churning-staff of mind, as butter is churned from
curds--as butter from milk, as the Brahmana from men, as the Āranyaka
from the Vedas, as Amrita from medicinal herbs.--This great Upanishad,
consistent with the four Vedas, in harmony with Sānkhya and Yoga, was
called by him by the name of Pańkarātra. This is excellent, this is
Brahman, this is supremely beneficial. Fully agreeing with the Rik, the
Yajus, the Sāman, and the Atharvān-giras, this doctrine will be truly
authoritative.' The terms Sānkhya and Yoga here denote the concentrated
application of knowledge and of works. As has been said, 'By the
application of knowledge on the part of the Sānkhya, and of works on the
part of the Yogins.' And in the Bhīshmaparvan we read, 'By Brahmanas,
Kshattriyas, Vaisyas and Sūdras, Mādhava is to be honoured, served and
worshipped--he who was proclaimed by Sankarshana in agreement with the
Sātvata law.'--How then could these utterances of Bādarāyana, the
foremost among all those who understand the teaching of the Veda, be
reconciled with the view that in the Sūtras he maintains the non-
authoritativeness of the Sātvata doctrine, the purport of which is to
teach the worship of, and meditation on, Vāsudeva, who is none other
than the highest Brahman known from the Vedānta-texts?

But other passages in the Mahābhārata, such as 'There is the Sānkhya,
the Yoga, the Pańkarātra, the Vedas, and the Pasupata doctrine; do all
these rest on one and the same basis, or on different ones?' and so on,
declare that the Sānkhya and other doctrines also are worthy of regard,
while yet in the Sārīraka Sūtras those very same doctrines are formally
refuted. Why, therefore, should not the same hold good in the case of
the Bhāgavata doctrine?--Not so, we reply. In the Mahābhārata also
Bādarayana applies to the Sānkhya and other doctrines the same style of
reasoning as in the Sūtras. The question, asked in the passage quoted,
means 'Do the Sānkhya, the Yoga, the Pasupata, and the Pańkarātra set
forth one and the same reality, or different ones? If the former, what
is that reality? If the latter, they convey contradictory doctrines, and,
as reality is not something which may be optionally assumed to be either
such or such, one of those doctrines only can be acknowledged as
authoritative, and the question then arises which is to be so
acknowledged?'--The answer to the question is given in the passage
beginning, 'Know, O royal Sage, all those different views. The
promulgator of the Sānkhya is Kapila,' &c. Here the human origin of the
Sānkhya, Yoga, and Pāsupata is established on the ground of their having
been produced by Kapila, Hiranyagarbha, and Pasupati. Next the clause
'Aparāntatamas is said to be the teacher of the Vedas' intimates the non-
human character of the Vedas; and finally the clause 'Of the whole
Pańkarātra, Nārāyana himself is the promulgator' declares that Nārāyana
himself revealed the Pańkarātra doctrine. The connected purport of these
different clauses is as follows. As the systems of human origin set
forth doctrines mutually contradictory, and, moreover, teach what is in
conflict with the matter known from the Veda--which, on account of its
non-human character, is raised above all suspicion of error and other
imperfections--they cannot be accepted as authoritative with regard to
anything not depending on human action and choice. Now the matter to be
known from the Veda is Nārāyana, who is none other than the highest
Brahman. It hence follows that the entities set forth in those different
systems--the pradhāna, the soul (purusha), Pasupati, and so on--have to
be viewed as real only in so far as Nārāyana, i.e. the highest Brahman,
as known from the Vedānta-texts, constitutes their Self. This the text
directly declares in the passage, 'In all those doctrines it is seen, in
accordance with tradition and reasoning, that the lord Narayawa is the
only basis.' This means--'To him who considers the entities set forth in
those systems with the help of argumentation, it is evident that
Nārāyana alone is the basis of all those entities.' In other words, as
the entities set forth in those systems are not Brahman, any one who
remembers the teaching of texts such as 'all this indeed is Brahman,'
'Nārāyana is all,' which declare Brahman to be the Self of all, comes to
the conclusion that Nārāyana alone is the basis of those entities. As
thus it is settled that the highest Brahman, as known from the Vedānta-
texts, or Nārāyana, himself is the promulgator of the entire Pańkarātra,
and that this system teaches the nature of Nārāyana and the proper way
of worshipping him, none can disestablish the view that in the
Pańkarātra all the other doctrines are comprised. For this reason the
Mahābhārata says, 'Thus the Sānkhya-yoga and the Veda and the Āranyaka,
being members of one another, are called the Pańkarātra,' i.e. the
Sānkhya, the Yoga, the Vedas, and the Āranyakas, which are members of
one another because they are one in so far as aiming at setting forth
one Truth, together are called the Pańkarātra.--The Sānkhya explains the
twenty-five principles, the Yoga teaches certain practices and means of
mental concentration, and the Āranyakas teach that all the subordinate
principles have their true Self in Brahman, that the mental
concentration enjoined in the Yoga is a mode of meditation on Brahman,
and that the rites and works which are set forth in the Veda are means
to win the favour of Brahman--thus giving instruction as to Brahman's
nature. Now all these elements, in their inward connexion, are clearly
set forth in the Pańkarātra by the highest Brahman, i.e. Nārāyana,
himself. The Sārīraka Sāstra (i.e. the Vedānta) does not disprove the
principles assumed by the Sānkhyas, but merely the view of their not
having Brahman for their Self; and similarly in its criticism on the
Yoga and Pāsupata systems, it merely refutes the view of the Lord being
a mere instrumental cause, the erroneous assumptions as to the relative
position of higher and lower entities, and certain practices not
warranted by the Veda; but it does not reject the Yoga itself, nor again
the lord Pāsupati. Hence Smriti says,' The Sānkhya, the Yoga, the
Pańkarātra, the Vedas, and the Psupata doctrine--all these having their
proof in the Self may not be destroyed by arguments.' The essential
points in all these doctrines are to be adopted, not to be rejected
absolutely as the teaching of Jina. or Sugata is to be rejected. For, as
said in the Smriti text quoted above, in all those doctrines it is seen,
according to tradition and reasoning, that the lord Nārāyana is the only
basis.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the impossibility of
origination.'




THIRD PĀDA.

1. Not Ether; on account of the absence of scriptural statement.

We have demonstrated that the Sānkhya-system and other systems standing
outside the Veda are untenable since they rest on fallacious reasoning
and are self-contradictory. In order to prove that our own view is
altogether free from all objections of this kind, we shall now explain
in detail the mode in which this world, with all its sentient and non-
sentient beings, is produced by Brahman, whom we hold to be the general
creator.

The first doubt here presenting itself is whether Ether be something
produced or not.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains that it is not produced,
since there is no scriptural statement to that effect. A scriptural
statement may be expected with regard to what is possible; but what is
impossible--as e.g. the origination of a sky-flower or of Ether--cannot
possibly be taught by Scripture. For the origination of Ether, which is
not made up of parts and is all pervasive, cannot be imagined in any way.
For this very reason, i.e. the impossibility of the thing, the Chandogya,
in its account of creation, mentions the origination of fire, water, &c.
only (but not of Ether)--'It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth,'
'It sent forth fire,' and so on. When therefore the Taittirīya, the
Atharvana, and other texts tell us that Ether did originate--'From that
Self sprang Ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'From him is born breath, mind,
and all organs of sense, Ether, air, light, water,' &c. (Mu. Up. II, 1,
4)--such statements are contrary to sense, and hence refute themselves.--
To this the Sūtra replies.




2. But there is.

But there is origination of Ether. For Scripture, which is concerned
with matters transcending sense perception, is able to establish the
truth even of the origination of Ether, although this be not proved by
other means of knowledge. And in a matter known from Scripture a
contradictory inference, such as that Ether cannot originate because it
is without parts, is not of sufficient force. That the non-
originatedness of the Self also does not rest on its being without parts
will be shown further on.--Here the Pūrvapakshin raises an objection.




3. It has a secondary sense, on account of impossibility and of the text.

It is reasonable to assume that in passages such as 'From that Self
there sprang Ether.' the origination of Ether is not to be taken in its
literal sense; for according to the Chāndogya-text 'it sent forth fire.'
Brahman engaged in creation first produces fire, and fire thus having
the first place, the text cannot possibly mean to say that Ether also
was produced. Moreover, there is another text, viz.'Vāyu and antariksha
(i.e. Ether), this is the Immortal,' according to which Ether is
immortal, i. e. non-produced.--But how can one and the same word viz. it
'sprang' (i.e. originated), be taken in a metaphorical sense with
reference to Ether, and in its literal sense with reference to fire, and
so on?--To this the next Sūtra replies.




4. There may be (a double sense) of the one (word), as in the case of
the word 'Brahman.'

Since in the clause 'from that Self there sprang Brahman,' the word
'sprang' cannot be taken in its literal senbe, it may be used there in a
secondary sense; while the same word as connected with the subsequent
clauses 'from Vāyu Agni,' &c., may have its primary sense. This would be
analogous to the use of the word Brahman in Mu. Up. I, 1. There in the
clause 'From him is born that Brahman, name, form, and matter' (9). the
word _Brahman_ is used in a secondary sense, i.e. denotes the Pradhāna;
while in the same chapter, in the clause 'Brahman swells by means of
brooding' (8), the same word denotes Brahman in its primary sense. It is
true indeed that in this latter case the word 'Brahman' occurs twice;
while in the Taitt. text the word 'sambhūta' occurs once only, and has
to be carried over from the first clause into the subsequent ones; but
this makes no difference, for, in the case of such carrying over of a
word, no less than in the case of actual repetition, the general
denotation of the word is repeated.--The next Sūtra refutes this
objection.




5. The non-abandonment of the promissory statement (results) from non-
difference.

It is not appropriate to assume, from deference to the Chāndogya-text, a
secondary meaning for those other texts also which declare Ether to have
originated. For the Chāndogyaitself virtually admits the origination of
Ether; in so far, namely, as the clause 'that by which the non-heard is
heard,' &c., declares that through the knowledge of Brahman everything
is known. This declaration is not abandoned, i.e. is adhered to, only if
the Ether also is an effect of Brahman and thus non-different from it.




6. (As follows also) from (other) texts.

That Ether is an originated thing follows from other clauses also in the
Chāndogya: 'Being only this was in the beginning, one without a second'
affirms the oneness of everything before creation, and 'In that all this
has its Self implies that everything is an effect of, and hence non-
different from, Brahman.--Nor does the statement as to the creation of
fire, 'it sent forth fire,' exclude the creation of Ether. For the first
place which there is assigned to fire rests only thereon that no mention
is made of the creation of Ether, and this has no force to negative the
creation of Ether as positively stated in other texts.




7. But the division (origination) extends over all effects; as in
ordinary life.

The 'but' has the sense of 'and.' As the clause 'In that all this has
its Self' and similar ones directly state that Ether also is a creation
of Brahman, the division, i.e. the origination of Ether from Brahman, is
implicitly declared thereby. As in ordinary life. When in ordinary life
somebody has said 'all these men are the sons of Devadatta,' it is known
that any particulars which may afterwards be given about the descent of
some of them are meant to apply to all.--In accordance with this our
conclusion we interpret the text 'Air and Ether, this is the Immortal,'
as asserting only that air and Ether continue to exist for a long time,
as the Devas do.




8. Hereby air is explained.

The same argumentation explains the origination of air also. That a
special Sūtra is devoted to the origination of air--instead of disposing
in one Sūtra of Ether and air--is for the sake of Sūtra 10, which states
that 'hence (i.e. from air) there originated fire.'




9. But there is non-origination of that which is (only); on account of
impossibility.

The 'but' has an affirmative sense. There is non-origination of that
which is, i.e. of Brahman only; of whatever is different from Brahman
non-origination cannot possibly be established. This means--the
origination of Ether and air has been proved only in order to illustrate
a general truth. Only that which _is_, i.e. Brahman, which is the
general cause, cannot originate. Whatever is other than Brahman, i. e.
the entire world comprising the Unevolved, the great principle (mahat),
ahankāra, the tanmātras, the sense-organs, the Ether, the air, and so on,
cannot possibly be shown to be non-originated, since its being an effect
is proved by the text declaring that everything is known through one
thing, and in other ways.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Ether.'




10. Fire (is produced) thence, for thus Scripture declares.

It has been stated that everything different from Brahman is the effect
of Brahman. The doubt now arises whether the more remote effects of
Brahman originate, each of them, only from that substance which is their
immediately antecedent cause or from Brahman in the form of that
substance.--The decision is that they originate from those substances
only; for the text 'from air fire' directly states the origination of
fire from air.




11. Water (from fire).

Water also originates 'thence,' i. e from fire; for so the texts declare
'From fire water' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'that sent forth water' (Ch. Up.
VI, 2, 3).




12. Earth (from water).

Earth originates from water; for so the texts declare 'From water earth'
(Taitt Up. II. 1, 1). 'It (water) sent forth food' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3).
But how can the word 'food' denote earth?--To this the next Sūtra
replies.




13. Earth on account of the subject-matter, the colour, and other texts.

That the word 'food' denotes the earth is to be inferred from the fact
that the section in which the word occurs has for its subject-matter the
creation of the elements; as everything eatable is a product of the
earth, the term denoting the effect is there applied to denote the cause.
In the same chapter, where the colour of the elements is mentioned ('The
red colour of a flame is the colour of fire, the white one that of water,
the black one that of food '), the collocation of words clearly shows
that 'food' means something of the same kind as fire and water, viz. the
elements of earth. And there are other texts also which treat of the
same topic and declare the origination of earth from water, cp. Taitt.
Up. II, 1, 'from fire sprang water, from water earth.' All this proves
that the term 'food' denotes earth, and that hence earth originates from
water.

Fire and the other substances, the origination of which has been
detailed, are mentioned merely as instances, and it must be understood
that also other entities, such as the 'Mahat,' and so on, originate only
from the immediately preceding cause, in agreement with scriptural
statements. And texts such as 'From him is born breath, mind, and all
organs of sense, ether, air, light, water, and the earth, the support of
all' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3); 'From him is born that Brahman, name, form, and
food' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'From that Self there sprang ether' (Taitt. Up.
II, 1, 1); 'It (i.e. that which is) sent forth fire' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3)--
(which seems to teach the direct origination from Brahman of the
different elements, and so on)--may be interpreted on the understanding
of Brahman being their mediate cause also.--This primā facie view the
next Sūtra disposes of.




14. But he; from the inferential mark supplied by their reflection.

The 'but' indicates the setting aside of the primā facie view raised. Of
all effected things, the _Mahat_, and so on, the highest Person himself,
in so far as embodied in the immediately preceding substance, is the
direct cause.--How is this known?--'From the inferential mark supplied
by the reflection of them.' By 'reflection' the Sūtra means the resolve
expressed in the recurring phrase, 'May I be many'; 'That fire thought,
may I be many'; 'That water thought, may I be many' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 3;
4). As these texts declare that there was thought in the form of a
resolve of self-multiplication--which thought can belong to a Self only,
we conclude that also the Mahat, the ahankāra, the Ether, and so on,
accomplish the sending forth of their respective effects only after
similar thought, and such thought can belong only to the highest Brahman
embodied in the Mahat, ahankāra, and so on. That the highest Brahman is
embodied in all beings and constitutes their Self, is directly stated in
the antaryāmin-brāhmana, 'He who abiding in the earth; abiding in water;
abiding in fire,' &c. &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 3 ff.); and likewise in the
Subāla-Up, 'Whose body is the earth,' &c. &c., up to 'Whose body is the
Unevolved.' The Pūrvapakshin had maintained that the creation, from
Brahman, of breath, and so on, which is declared in texts such as 'From
him are born breath, mind,' &c., may be understood as a mediate creation.
This point is taken up by the next Sūtra.




15. But the order of succession (which is stated) in reverse order (of
the true one) is possible, (only if the origination of all effects is)
thence (i.e. from Brahman).

The 'but' has an asseverative sense. The direct origination from Brahman
of all effects--which in passages such as the one quoted by the
Pūrvapakshin is stated in a form the reverse of the (true) order of
origination according to which the Unevolved, the Mahat, the ahankāra,
Ether, and so on, succeed each other--is possible only on the
supposition of the origination of each effect being really from Brahman
itself in the form of a special causal substance. To understand the
causality of Brahman as a merely mediate one would be to contradict all
those statements of immediate origination. Texts such as the one quoted
thus confirm the conclusion that everything originates from Brahman
directly.




16. If it be said that knowledge and mind (which are mentioned) between
(breath and the elements) (are stated) in order of succession, owing to
an inferential mark of this; we say, not so, on account of non-
difference.

'Knowledge' in the Sūtra denotes the means of knowledge, i.e. the sense-
organs.--An objection is raised against the conclusion arrived at under
the preceding Sūtra. We cannot, the opponent says, admit the conclusion
that the passage from the Mundka Up. 'from him is born breath, mind,' &c.,
declares the immediate origination from Brahman of all things, and that
hence the passage confirms the view, first suggested by the inferential
mark of 'thought' (see above, Sū. 14), that everything springs from
Brahman direct. For the purport of the text is to state a certain order
of succession, and we hence conclude that all the beings mentioned were
successively created. In the second half of the text we recognise the
series of ether, air, fire, &c., which is known to us from other texts,
and from the fact of their being exhibited in one and the same text we
conclude that knowledge and mind--which are mentioned between breath on
the one side and the elements on the other--must be viewed as created in
that order. The text therefore in no way confirms the direct origination
of everything from Brahman. To this the Sūtra replies, 'Not so, on
account of non-difference.' The first words of the text 'from him is
born' connect themselves equally with breath, and knowledge, and mind,
and the scries of elements beginning with ether; and the meaning of the
whole therefore is to declare that all the entities spring directly from
Brahman, not to teach the order of succession in which they are produced.
It moreover cannot have the purport of teaching a certain order of
succession, because the order stated contradicts the order established
by other scriptural passages; such as the one beginning 'the earth is
merged in water,' and ending 'darkness becomes one.' We hence hold to
the conclusion that all effects originate from Brahman only, in so far
as embodied in the Unevolved, and so on, and that the terms 'fire' and
so on denote Brahman, which is the Self of all those substances.--But to
interpret all these words as denoting Brahman is to set aside their
special denotative power as established by etymology!--To this objection
the next Sūtra replies.




17. But that which abides in the things movable and immovable, i.e. the
terms denoting those things, are non-secondary (i.e. of primary
denotative power, viz. with regard to Brahman); since (their denotative
power) is effected by the being of that (i.e. Brahman).

The 'but' sets aside the objection raised. (The primā facie view here is
as follows.) As Brahman, which has all things for its modes, is not the
object of Perception and the other means of knowledge which give rise to
the apprehension of the things only which are Brahman's modes, and as
hence, previously to the study of the Vedānta-texts, the idea of that to
which the modes belong (i.e. of Brahman) does not arise, and as the
knowledge of all words finally denoting Brahman depends on the existence
of the idea of that to which the modes belong (i. e. Brahman); all the
individual words are used in worldly language only separately to denote
special things. In other words, as the terms 'fire' and so on have
denotative power with regard to particular things only, their denotative
power with regard to Brahman is secondary, indirect only.--Of this view
the Sūtra disposes by saying 'that which abides in the moving and the
non-moving,' &c. The meaning is--the terms which abide in, i.e. are
connected with, the different moving and non-moving things, and hence
denote those things, possess with regard to Brahman a denotative power
which is not 'bhākta,' i.e. secondary or figurative, but primary and
direct. 'Why so?' Because the denotative power of all words is dependent
on the being of Brahman. For this we know from the scriptural passage
which tells how names and forms were evolved by Brahman.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'fire.'




18. Not the Self, on account of scriptural statement, and on account of
the eternity (which results) from them.

The Sūtras so far have stated that this entire world, from Ether
downwards, originates from the highest Brahman. It now becomes a matter
for discussion whether the individual soul also originates in the same
way or not.--It does so originate, the Pūrvapakshin maintains. For on
this assumption only the scriptural statement as to the cognition of all
things through the cognition of one thing holds good, and moreover
Scripture declares that before creation everything was one. Moreover,
there are texts directly stating that the soul also was produced in the
same way as Ether and other created things.

'Prajāpati sent forth all creatures'; 'All these creatures have their
root in the True, they abide in the True, they rest on the True' (Ch. Up.
VI, 8, 6); 'From whence these beings are produced' (Taitt. Up. III, 1,
1). As these passages declare the origination of the world inclusive of
sentient beings, we conclude that the souls also originate. Nor must
this be objected to on the ground than from the fact that Brahman is
eternal, and the other fact that texts such as 'That art them' teach the
soul to be of the nature of Brahman, it follows that the soul also is
eternal. For if we reasoned in this style we should have to admit also
that the Ether and the other elements are eternal, since texts such as
'in that all this has its Self' and 'all this indeed is Brahman
'intimate them also to be of the nature of Brahman. Hence the individual
soul also originates no less than Ether and the rest.--To this the Sūtra
replies, 'Not the Self, on account of scriptural statement.' The Self is
not produced, since certain texts directly deny its origination; cp.
'the intelligent one is not born nor does he die' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18);
'There are two unborn ones, one intelligent and strong, the other non-
intelligent and weak' (Svet. Up. I, 9). And the eternity of the soul is
learned from the same texts, cp. 'There is one eternal thinker,' &c. (Ka.
Up. II,5, 13); 'Unborn, eternal, everlasting is that ancient one; he is
not killed though the body is killed' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18).--For these
reasons the soul is not produced.

But how then about the declaration that through the cognition of one
thing everything is known?-There is no difficulty here, since the soul
also is an effect, and since effect and cause are non-different.--But
this implies that the soul is an originated thing just like Ether and so
on!--Not so, we reply. By a thing being an effect we mean its being due
to a substance passing over into some other state; and from this point
of view the soul also is an effect. There is, however, the difference,
that the 'other condition' which is represented by the soul is of a
different kind from that which constitutes non-sentient things, such as
Ether and so on. The 'otherness' on which the soul depends consists in
the contraction and expansion of intelligence; while the change on which
the origination of Ether and so on depends is a change of essential
nature. And change of the latter kind is what we deny of the soul. We
have shown that there are three entities of distinct nature, viz.
objects of fruition, enjoying subjects, and a Ruler; that origination
and so on which are characteristic of the objects do not belong to the
subjects, and that the latter are eternal; that the characteristic
qualities of the objects and likewise those of the subjects--viz.
liability to pain and suffering--do not belong to the Ruler; that the
latter is eternal, free from all imperfections, omniscient, immediately
realising all his purposes, the Lord of the lords of the organs, the
highest Lord of all; and that sentient and non-sentient beings in all
their states constitute the body of the Lord while he constitutes their
Self. While Brahman thus has for its modes (prakāra) the sentient and
non-sentient beings in which it ever is embodied, during certain periods
those beings abide in so subtle a condition as to be incapable of
receiving designations different from that of Brahman itself; Brahman
then is said to be in its causal state. When, on the other hand, its
body is constituted by all those beings in their gross state, when they
have separate, distinct names and forms, Brahman is said to be in its
effected condition. When, now, Brahman passes over from the causal state
into the effected state, the aggregate of non-sentient things which in
the causal state were destitute of name and form undergoes an essential
change of nature--implying the possession of distinct names and so on--
so as to become fit to constitute objects of fruition for sentient
beings; the change, on the other hand, which the sentient beings (the
souls) undergo on that occasion is nothing more than a certain expansion
of intelligence (or consciousness), capacitating them to experience the
different rewards or punishments for their previous deeds. The ruling
element of the world, i.e. the Lord, finally, who has the sentient and
non-sentient beings for his modes, undergoes a change in so far as he is,
at alternating periods, embodied in all those beings in their
alternating states. The two modes, and he to whom the modes belong, thus
undergo a common change in so far as in the case of all of them the
causal condition passes over into a different condition.

It is with reference to this change undergone by one substance in
passing over into a different state that the Chandogya says that through
the knowledge of one thing everything is known, and illustrates this by
the case of the lump of clay (knowing which we know all things made of
clay). Texts such as 'Prajāpati sent forth the creatures,' which declare
the origination of the soul, really mean only to state that the souls
are by turns associated with or dissociated from bodies--the effect of
which is that their intelligence is either contracted or expanded. Texts
again which deny the origination of the soul and affirm its permanency
('He is not born and does not die,' &c.) mean to say that the soul does
not, like the non-sentient element of creation, undergo changes of
essential nature. And finally there are texts the purport of which it is
to declare the absence of change of essential nature as well as of
alternate expansion and contraction of intelligence--cp. 'That is the
great unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV,
4, 25); 'the eternal thinker,' &c. (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); such texts have
for their subject the highest Lord.--All this also explains how Brahman,
which is at all times differentiated by the sentient and non-sentient
beings that constitute its body, can be said to be one only previous to
creation; the statement is possible because at that time the
differentiation of names and forms did not exist. That that which makes
the difference between plurality and unity is the presence or absence of
differentiation through names and forms, is distinctly declared in the
text, 'Now all this was undifferentiated. It became differentiated by
form and name' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7).--Those also who hold that the
individual soul is due to Nescience; and those who hold it to be due to
a real limiting adjunct (upādhi); and those who hold that Brahman, whose
essential nature is mere Being, assumes by itself the threefold form of
enjoying subjects, objects of enjoyment, and supreme Ruler; can all of
them explain the unity which Scripture predicates of Brahman in the
pralaya state, only on the basis of the absence of differentiation by
names and forms; for according to them also (there is no absolute unity
at any time, but) either the potentiality of Nescience, or the
potentiality of the limiting adjunct, or the potentialities of enjoying
subjects, objects of enjoyment, and supreme Ruler persist in the pralaya
condition also. And, moreover, it is proved by the two Sūtras, II, 1, 33;
35, that the distinction of the several individual souls and the stream
of their works are eternal.

There is, however, the following difference between those several views.
The first-mentioned view implies that Brahman itself is under the
illusive influence of beginningless Avidyā. According to the second view,
the effect of the real and beginningless limiting adjunct is that
Brahman itself is in the state of bondage; for there is no other entity
but Brahman and the adjunct. According to the third view, Brahman itself
assumes different forms, and itself experiences the various unpleasant
consequences of deeds. Nor would it avail to say that that part of
Brahman which is the Ruler is not an experiencing subject; for as
Brahman is all-knowing it recognises the enjoying subject as non-
different from itself, and thus is itself an enjoying subject.--
According to our view, on the other hand, Brahman, which has for its
body all sentient and non-sentient beings, whether in their subtle or
their gross state, is always--in its effected as well as in its causal
condition free from all shadow of imperfection, and a limitless ocean as
it were of all exalted qualities. All imperfections, and suffering, and
all change belong not to Brahman, but only to the sentient and non-
sentient beings which are its modes. This view removes all difficulties.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Self.'




19. For this very reason (the individual soul is) a knower.

It has been shown that, different therein from Ether and the rest, the
soul is not produced. This leads to the consideration of the soul's
essential nature. Is that essential nature constituted by mere
intelligence as Sugata and Kapila hold; or is the soul as Kanāda thinks,
essentially non-intelligent, comparable to a stone, while intelligence
is merely an adventitious quality of it; or is it essentially a knowing
subject?--The soul is mere intelligence, the Pūrvapakshin maintains; for
the reason that Scripture declares it to be so. For in the antaryāmin-
brāhmana the clause which in the Mādhyandina-text runs as follows, 'he
who abides in the Self,' is in the text of the Kānvas represented by the
clause 'he who abides in knowledge.' Similarly the text 'knowledge
performs the sacrifice and all sacred acts' (Taitt. Up. II, 5, I) shows
that it is knowledge only which is the true nature of the active Self.
And Smriti texts convey the same view, as e.g. 'it in reality is of the
nature of absolutely spotless intelligence.' A second Pūrvapakshin
denies the truth of this view. If, he says, we assume that the Self's
essential nature consists either in mere knowledge or in its being a
knowing subject, it follows that as the Self is omnipresent there must
be consciousness at all places and at all times. On that doctrine we,
further, could not account for the use of the instruments of cognition
(i.e. the sense-organs, &c.); nor for the fact that in the states of
deep sleep, swoon and so on, the Self although present is not observed
to be conscious, while on the other hand consciousness is seen to arise
as soon as the conditions of the waking state are realised. We therefore
conclude that neither intelligence or consciousness, nor being a knowing
agent, constitutes the essence of the soul, but that consciousness is a
mere adventitious or occasional attribute. And the omnipresence of the
Self must needs be admitted since its effects are perceived everywhere.
Nor is there any valid reason for holding that the Self moves to any
place; for as it is assumed to be present everywhere the actual
accomplishment of effects (at certain places only) may be attributed to
the moving of the body only.--Scripture also directly declares that in
the state of deep sleep there is no consciousness, 'I do not indeed at
the present moment know myself, so as to be able to say "that am I," nor
do I know those beings.' Similarly Scripture declares the absence of
consciousness in the state of final release, 'when he has departed there
is no consciousness' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 12); where the Self is spoken of
as having knowledge for its essential nature, the meaning only is that
knowledge constitutes its specific quality, and the expression is
therefore not to be urged in its literal sense.

Against all this the Sūtra declares 'for this very reason a knower.'
This Self is essentially a knower, a knowing subject; not either mere
knowledge or of non-sentient nature.--Why?--'For this very reason,' i.e.
on account of Scripture itself. 'For this reason' refers back to the 'on
account of Scripture' in the preceding Sūtra. For in the Chāndogya,
where the condition of the released and the non-released soul is
described, the text says 'He who knows, let me smell this, he is the
Self--with the mind seeing those pleasures he rejoices-the devas who are
in the world of Brahman--whose desires are true, whose purposes are true--
not remembering the body into which he was born' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 4-5;
1, 5; 12, 3). And elsewhere 'The seer does not see death' (Ch. Up. VII,
26, 2). Similarly we read in the Vājasaneyaka, in reply to the question
'Who is that Self?'--'He who is within the heart, surrounded by the
Prānas, the person of light, consisting of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
7); 'By what should one know the knower?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'That
person knows.' And 'for he is the knower, the hearer, the smeller, the
taster, the perceiver, the thinker, the agent--he the person whose Self
is knowledge'; and 'thus these sixteen parts of that seer' (Pra. Up. IV,
9; VI, 5). To the objection that if being a cognising subject
constituted the essential nature of the Self it would follow that as the
Self is omnipresent, there would be consciousness always and everywhere,
the next Sūtra replies.




20. On account of (its) passing out, moving and returning.

The Self is not omnipresent, but on the contrary, of atomic size (anu).--
How is this known?--Since Scripture says that it passes out, goes and
returns. Its passing out is described in the following passage 'by that
light this Self departs, either through the eye, or through the skull,
or through other parts of the body' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2). Its going in
the following text 'all those who pass away out of this world go to the
moon,' and its returning in the text 'from that world he comes again
into this world, for action.' All this going, and so on, cannot be
reconciled with the soul being present everywhere.




21. And on account of the latter two (being effected) through the Self.

The 'and' has affirming power. The 'passing out' might somehow be
reconciled with a non-moving Self (such as the omnipresent Self would
be) if it were taken in the sense of the Self separating from the body;
but for the going and returning no analogous explanation is possible.
They, therefore, must be taken as effected by the Self itself (which,
then, cannot be omnipresent and non-moving).




22. If it be said that (the soul) is not atomic, on account of
scriptural statement of (what is) not that; we say no, on account of the
other one being the topic.

The passage 'He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Prānas, the
person consisting of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7) introduces as the
topic of discussion the personal Self, and further on in the same
chapter we read 'the unborn Self, the great one' (IV, 4, 22). The
personal Self, being expressly called _great_, cannot, therefore, be
atomic!--Not so, we reply. 'Since the other one is the topic.' In the
second text quoted that Self which is other than the personal Self--i.e.
the highest Self (prājńa) constitutes the topic. In the beginning of the
chapter, indeed, the individual Self is introduced, but later on,
between the two texts quoted, the instruction begins to concern itself
with the highest Self, 'he by whom there is known the Self of
intelligence' (pratibuddha ātmā; IV, 4, 13). It is this latter Self
which, in 22 is called _great_, not the individual Self.




23. And on account of the very word, and of measure.

Scripture directly applies the word 'anu' to the individual Self, 'By
thought is to be known that atomic Self into which Breath has entered
fivefold' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 9).--By the term 'unmāna' in the Sūtra we
have to understand measurement by selection of comparative instances.
Scripture declares the minuteness of the individual Self by reference to
things which are like atoms in size, 'The individual soul is to be known
as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair divided a hundred
times, and yet it is to be infinite' (Svet. Up. V, 9); 'that lower one
is seen of the measure of the point of a goad' (V, 8). For these reasons
also the individual Self must be viewed as atomic.--But this conflicts
with the fact that sensation extends over the whole body!--This
objection the next Sūtra refutes by means of an analogous instance.




24. There is no contradiction, as in the case of sandal-ointment.

As a drop of sandal-ointment, although applied to one spot of the body
only, yet produces a refreshing sensation extending over the whole body;
thus the Self also, although dwelling in one part of the body only, is
conscious of sensations taking place in any part of the body.




25. Should it be said (that this is not so) on account of specialisation
of abode; we say no, on account of the acknowledgment (of a place of the
Self), viz. in the heart.

There is a difference. The drop of ointment can produce its effect as at
any rate it is in contact with a definite part of the body. But we know
of no such part in the case of the soul!--Not so, we reply. Scripture
informs us that the Self abides in a definite part of the body, viz. the
heart. 'For that Self is in the heart, there are a hundred and one veins.'
And in reply to the question 'What is that Self?' the text has 'He who
is within the heart, surrounded by the Prānas, the Person of light,
consisting of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7).--The parallel case of
the sandal-ointment is referred to in order to point out that the Self
abides in some particular part of the body; while the ointment is not
bound to any special place.--In the next Sūtra the Sūtrakāra proceeds to
state how, according to his own view, the Self, although abiding in one
spot only, gives rise to effects extending over the whole body.




26. Or on account of its quality as light.

The 'or' is meant to set aside the view previously stated. The Self
extends through the whole body by means of its quality, viz. knowledge
or consciousness. 'As light.' As the light of things abiding in one
place--such as gems, the sun, and so on--is seen to extend to many
places, so the consciousness of the Self dwelling in the heart pervades
the entire body. That the knowledge of the knowing subject may extend
beyond its substrate, as the light of a luminous body does, we have
already explained under the first Sūtra.--But it has been said that the
Self is _mere_ knowledge; how then can knowledge be said to be a quality--
which is something different from the essential nature of a thing?--This
the next Sūtra explains.




27. There is distinction as in the case of smell; and thus Scripture
declares.

Just as smell, which is perceived as a quality of earth, is distinct
from earth; thus knowledge of which we are conscious as the quality of a
knowing subject--which relation expresses itself in judgments such as 'I
know'--is different from the knowing subject. Scriptural texts also
prove this relation, as e.g. 'This Person knows.'




28. On account of the separate statement.

Scripture even states quite directly that knowledge is something
distinct from the knowing subject, viz. in the passage 'For there is not
known any intermission of the knowing of the knower' (Bri. Up. IV, 3,
30).--It has been said that in passages such as 'he who abiding in
knowledge' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22); 'Knowledge performs the sacrifice'
(Taitt. Up. II, 5, 1); 'having knowledge for its nature, absolutely free
from stain,'Scripture speaks of the Self as being mere knowledge (not a
knower). This point the next Sūtra elucidates.




29. But (the Self) is designated as that because it has that quality
(viz. knowledge) for its essential quality; as in the case of the
intelligent (prājńa) Self.

The 'but' discards the objection. Because that quality, viz. the quality
of knowledge, is the essential quality, therefore the Self is, in the
passages quoted, designated as knowledge. For knowledge constitutes the
essential quality of the Self. Similarly, the intelligent highest Self
is occasionally called 'Bliss,' because bliss is its essential quality.
Compare 'If that bliss existed not in the ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, 1);
'He perceived that bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1). That bliss
is the essential attribute of Brahman is proved by texts such as 'That
is one bliss of Brahman'; 'He who knows the bliss of Brahman is afraid
of nothing' (Taitt. Up. II, 4, 1).--Or else the analogous case to which
the Sūtra refers may be that of the intelligent Brahman being designated
by the term 'knowledge,' in texts such as 'Truth, knowledge, the
Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1). That knowledge is the essential
quality of Brahman is known from passages such as 'together with the
intelligent Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He who is all-knowing' (Mu.
Up. I, 1, 9).




30. And there is no objection, since (the quality of knowledge) exists
wherever the Self is; this being observed.

Since knowledge is an attribute which is met with wherever a Self is,
there is no objection to the Self being designated by that attribute.
Similarly we observe that special kinds of cows, as e.g. hornless ones,
are designated by the term 'cow,' since the quality of possessing the
generic character of cows is met with everywhere in connexion with the
essential character of such animals with mutilated horns; since in fact
that quality contributes to define their essential character. The 'and'
of the Sūtra is meant to suggest a further argument, viz. that to apply
to the Self the term 'knowledge' is suitable for that reason also that
like knowledge the Self is self-illuminated. The objection that
knowledge or consciousness cannot be an attribute inseparably connected
with the essential nature of the Self as there is no consciousness in
deep sleep and similar states is taken up in the next Sūtra.




31. Since there may be manifestation of that which exists; as in the
case of virile power and so on.

The 'but' is meant to set the raised objection aside. The case may be
that while consciousness is present also in deep sleep, and so on, it is
manifested in the waking state only; whence there would be no objection
to viewing consciousness as an essential attribute of the Self. 'As in
the case of virile power and the like.' Special substances such as the
virile element are indeed present in the male child already, but then
are not manifest, while later on they manifest themselves with advancing
youth; but all the same the possession of those substances is essential
to the male being, not merely adventitious. For to be made up of seven
elementary substances (viz. blood, humour, flesh, fat, marrow, bone, and
semen) is an essential, property of the body. That even in deep sleep
and similar states the 'I' shines forth we have explained above.
Consciousness is always there, but only in the waking state and in
dreams it is observed to relate itself to objects. And that to be a
subject of cognition, and so on, are essential attributes of the Self,
we have also proved before. The conclusion, therefore, is that to be a
knowing subject is the essential character of the Self. And that Self is
of atomic size. The text 'when he has departed there is no
consciousness' (samjńā; Bri. Up. II, 4, 12) does not declare that the
released Self has no consciousness; but only that in the case of that
Self there is absent that knowledge (experience) of birth, death, and so
on, which in the Samsāra state is caused by the connexion of the Self
with the elements--as described in the preceding passage, 'that great
being having risen from out these elements again perishes after them.'
For the text as to the absence of samjńā after death must be interpreted
in harmony with other texts describing the condition of the released
soul, such as 'the seeing one does not see death nor illness nor pain;
the seeing one sees everything and obtains everything everywhere' (Ch.
Up. VII, 25, 2); 'not remembering that body into which he was born--
seeing these pleasures with the mind he rejoices' (VIII, 12, 3; 5).

The Sūtras now proceed to refute the doctrine of the Self being (not a
knower) but mere knowledge, and being omnipresent.




32. There would result permanent consciousness or non-consciousness, or
else limitative restriction to either.

On the other view, i.e. on the view of the Self being omnipresent and
mere knowledge, it would follow either that consciousness and also non-
consciousness would permanently take place together everywhere; or else
that there would be definite permanent restriction to either of the two,
i.e. either permanent consciousness or permanent non-consciousness.--If
the omnipresent Self, consisting of mere knowledge only, were the cause
of all that actual consciousness and non-consciousness on the part of
Selfs which takes place in the world, it might be conceived either as
the cause of both--i.e. consciousness and non-consciousness--and this
would mean that there is everywhere and at all times simultaneous
consciousness and non-consciousness. If, on the other hand, it were the
cause of consciousness only, there would never and nowhere be
unconsciousness of anything; and if it were the cause of non-
consciousness only, there would never and nowhere be consciousness of
anything. On our view, on the other hand, the actually perceived
distribution of consciousness and non-consciousness explains itself,
since we hold the Self to abide within bodies only, so that naturally
consciousness takes place there only, not anywhere else.--The view,
finally (held by the Vaiseshikas), of the consciousness of the Self
depending on its organs (mind, senses, &c.; while the omnipresent Self
is, apart from those organs, non-sentient, jada), results in the same
difficulties as the view criticised above; for as all the Selfs are
omnipresent they are in permanent conjunction with all organs; and
moreover it would follow that the adrishtas (due to the actions of the
different bodies) could not thus be held apart (but would cling to all
Selfs, each of which is in contact with all bodies).

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the _knower_.'




33. (The soul is) an agent, on account of Scripture (thus) having a
purport.

It has been shown that the individual Self is a knowing subject and
atomic. Now the question arises whether that Self is an agent or, being
itself non-active, erroneously ascribes to itself the activity of the
non-sentient gunas. The primā facie answer is that the individual Self
is not an agent, since the sacred texts concerned with the Self declare
that the Self does not act, while the gunas do act. Thus, e.g. in the
Kathavallī, where the text at first denies of the individual Self all
the attributes of Prakriti, such as being born, ageing and dying ('he is
not born, he does not die'), and then also denies that the Self is the
agent in acts such as killing and the like, 'If the slayer thinks that
he slays, if the slain thinks that he is slain, they both do not
understand; for this one does not slay, nor is that one slain' (I, 2,
19). This means--if one thinks the Self to be the slayer one does not
know the Self. And the Lord himself teaches that non-agency is the
essential nature of the individual soul, and that it is mere delusion on
the Self's part to ascribe to itself agency. 'By the attributes (guna)
of Prakriti, actions are wrought all round.' He who is deluded by self-
conceit thinks 'I am the agent'; 'when the seer beholds no other agent
than the gunas'; 'Prakriti is said to be the cause of all agency of
causes and effects, whilst the soul is the cause of all enjoyment of
pleasure and pain' (Bha. Gī. III, 27; XIV, 19; XIII, 20).--The soul,
therefore, is an enjoyer only, while all agency belongs to Prakriti--To
this the Sūtra replies, 'an agent, on account of Scripture thus having a
meaning.' The Self only is an agent, not the gunas, because thus only
Scripture has a meaning. For the scriptural injunctions, such as 'he who
desires the heavenly world is to sacrifice,' 'He who desires Release is
to meditate on Brahman,' and similar ones, enjoin action on him only who
will enjoy the fruit of the action--whether the heavenly world, or
Release, or anything else. If a non-sentient thing were the agent, the
injunction would not be addressed to another being (viz. to an
intelligent being--to which it actually is addressed). The term 'sāstra'
(scriptural injunction) moreover comes from sās, to command, and
commanding means impelling to action. But scriptural injunctions impel
to action through giving rise to a certain conception (in the mind of
the being addressed), and the non-sentient Pradhāna cannot be made to
conceive anything. Scripture therefore has a sense only, if we admit
that none but the intelligent enjoyer of the fruit of the action is at
the same time the agent. Thus the Pūrva Mimamsa declares 'the fruit of
the injunction belongs to the agent' (III, 7, 18). The Pūrvapakshin had
contended that the text 'if the slayer thinks, &c.,' proves the Self not
to be the agent in the action of slaying; but what the text really means
is only that the Self as being eternal cannot be killed. The text, from
Smriti, which was alleged as proving that the gunas only possess active
power, refers to the fact that in all activities lying within the sphere
of the samsara, the activity of the Self is due not to its own nature
but to its contact with the different gunas. The activity of the gunas,
therefore, must be viewed not as permanent, but occasional only. In the
same sense Smriti says 'the reason is the connexion of the soul with the
guwas, in its births, in good and evil wombs' (Bha. Gī. XIII, 21).
Similarly it is said there (XVIII, 16) that 'he who through an untrained
understanding looks upon the isolated Self as an agent, that man of
perverted mind does not see'; the meaning being that, since it appears
from a previous passage that the activity of the Self depends on five
factors (as enumerated in sl. 16), he who views the isolated Self to be
an agent has no true insight.




34. On account of taking and the declaration as to its moving about.

The text beginning 'And as a great king,' &c., declares that 'the Self
taking the pranas moves about in its own body, according to its
pleasure' (Bri. Up. II, 1, 18), i.e. it teaches that the Self is active
in taking to itself the prānas and moving about in the body.




35. And on account of the designation (of the Self as the agent) in
actions. If not so, there would be change of grammatical expression.

Because in the text 'Knowledge performs the sacrifice, it performs all
works' (Taitt. Up. II, 5) the Self is designated as the agent in all
worldly and Vedic works, for this reason also the Self must be held to
be an agent. And should it be said that the word 'knowledge' in that
text denotes not the Self, but the internal organ or buddhi, we point
out that in that case there would be a change of grammatical expression,
that is to say, as the buddhi is the instrument of action, the text
would exhibit the instrumental case instead of the nominative case 'by
knowledge, and so on' (vijńānena instead of vijńānam).




36. (There would be) absence of definite rule, as in the case of
consciousness.

The Sūtra points out a difficulty which arises on the view of the Self
not being an agent. Sūtra 32 has declared that if the Self were all-
pervading it would follow that there would be no definite determination
with regard to consciousness. Similarly, if the Self were not an agent
but all activity belonged to Prakriti it would follow that as Prakriti
is a common possession of all souls, all actions would result in
enjoyment (experience) on the part of all souls, or else on the part of
none; for as each Self is held to be omnipresent, they are all of them
in equal proximity to all parts of the Pradhāna. For the same reason it
could not be maintained that the distribution of results between the
different souls depends on the different internal organs which are
joined to the souls; for if the souls are omnipresent, no soul will be
exclusively connected with any particular internal organ.




37. On account of the inversion of power.

If the internal organ were the agent, then--since it is impossible that
a being other than the agent should be the enjoyer of the fruit of the
action--the power of enjoyment also would belong to the internal organ,
and would consequently have to be denied of the Self. But if this were
so, there would be no longer any proof for the existence of the Self;
for they expressly teach that 'the person (i.e. the soul) exists, on
account of the fact of enjoyment.'




38. And on account of the absence of samādhi.

If the internal organ were the agent, it would be such even in that
final state of meditation, called samādhi, which is the instrument of
Release. But that state consists therein that the meditating being
realises its difference from Prakriti, and this is a conception which
Prakriti itself (of which the internal organ is only a modification)
cannot form. The Self alone, therefore, is the agent. But this would
imply that the activity of the Self is never at rest! Of this difficulty
the next Sūtra disposes.




39. And as the carpenter, in both ways.

The Self, although always provided with the instruments of action, such
as the organ of speech, and so on, acts when it wishes to do so, and
does not act when it does not wish to do so. Just as a carpenter,
although having his axe and other implements ready at hand, works or
does not work just as he pleases. If the internal organ, on the contrary,
were essentially active, it would constantly be acting, since as a non-
intelligent being it could not be influenced by particular reasons for
action, such as the desire for enjoyment.

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the agent.'




40. But from the highest, this being declared by Scripture.

Is the activity of the individual soul independent (free), or does it
depend on the highest Self? It is free; for if it were dependent on the
highest Self, the whole body of scriptural injunctions and prohibitions
would be unmeaning. For commandments can be addressed to such agents
only as are capable of entering on action or refraining from action,
according to their own thought and will.

This primā facie view is set aside by the Sūtra. The activity of the
individual soul proceeds from the highest Self as its cause. For
Scripture teaches this. 'Entered within, the ruler of creatures, the
Self of all'; 'who dwelling in the Self is different from the Self, whom
the Self does not know, whose body the Self is, who rules the Self from
within, he is thy Self, the inward ruler, the immortal one.' Smriti
teaches the same, 'I dwell within the heart of all; memory and knowledge
as well as their loss come from me'(Bha. Gī. XV, 15); 'The Lord, O
Arjuna, dwells in the heart of all creatures, whirling, by his
mysterious power, all creatures as if mounted on a machine' (Bha. Gī.
XVIII, 61).--But this view implies the meaninglessness of all scriptural
injunctions and prohibitions!--To this the next Sūtra replies.




41. But with a view to the efforts made (the Lord makes the soul act) on
account of the (thus resulting) non-meaninglessness of injunctions and
prohibitions and the rest.

The inwardly ruling highest Self promotes action in so far as it regards
in the case of any action the volitional effort made by the individual
soul, and then aids that effort by granting its favour or permission
(anumati); action is not possible without permission on the part of the
highest Self. In this way (i.e. since the action primarily depends on
the volitional effort of the soul) injunctions and prohibitions are not
devoid of meaning. The 'and the rest' of the Sūtra is meant to suggest
the grace and punishments awarded by the Lord.--The case is analogous to
that of property of which two men are joint owners. If one of these
wishes to transfer that property to a third person he cannot do so
without the permission of his partner, but that that permission is given
is after all his own doing, and hence the fruit of the action (reward or
anything) properly belongs to him only.--That, in the case of evil
actions, allowance of the action on the part of one able to stop it does
not necessarily prove hardheartedness, we have shown above when
explaining the Sānkhya doctrine.--But there is a scriptural text.--'He
(the Lord) makes him whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds do a
good deed, and the same makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these
worlds do a bad deed' (Kau. Up. III, 8)--which means that the Lord
himself causes men to do good and evil actions, and this does not agree
with the partial independence claimed above for the soul.--The text
quoted, we reply, does not apply to all agents, but means that the Lord,
wishing to do a favour to those who are resolved on acting so as fully
to please the highest Person, engenders in their minds a tendency
towards highly virtuous actions, such as are means to attain to him;
while on the other hand, in order to punish those who are resolved on
lines of action altogether displeasing to him, he engenders in their
minds a delight in such actions as have a downward tendency and are
obstacles in the way of the attainment of the Lord. Thus the Lord
himself says, 'I am the origin of all, everything proceeds from me;
knowing this the wise worship me with love. To them ever devoted,
worshipping me in love, I give that means of wisdom by which they attain
to me. In mercy only to them, dwelling in their hearts, do I destroy the
darkness born of ignorance, with the brilliant light of knowledge' (Bha.
Gī. X, 8; 10-11). And further on the Lord--after having described
'demoniac' people, in the passus beginning 'they declare the world to be
without a Truth, without a resting-place, without a Ruler,' and ending
'malignantly hating me who abides in their own bodies and those of
others'--declares, 'These evil and malign haters, most degraded of men,
I hurl perpetually into transmigrations and into demoniac wombs' (XVI, 8-
19).

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that which depends on the Highest.'




42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the declarations of difference
and otherwise; some also record (that Brahman is of) the nature of
slaves, fishermen, and so on.

The Sūtras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as
such dependent on the highest Person. The following question now arises--
Is the individual soul absolutely different from Brahman? or is it
nothing else than Brahman itself in so far as under the influence of
error? or is it Brahman in so far as determined by a limiting adjunct
(upādhi)? or is it a part (amsa) of Brahman?--The doubt on this point is
due to the disagreement of the scriptural texts.--But this whole matter
has already been decided under Sū. II, 1, 22.--True. But as a difficulty
presents itself on the ground of the conflicting nature of the texts--
some asserting the difference and some the unity of the individual soul
and Brahman--the matter is here more specially decided by its being
proved that the soul is a part of Brahman. As long as this decision
remains unsettled, the conclusions arrived at under the two Sūtras
referred to, viz. that the soul is non-different from Brahman and that
Brahman is 'additional' to the soul, are without a proper basis.

Let it then first be said that the soul is absolutely different from
Brahman, since texts such as 'There are two, the one knowing, the other
not knowing, both unborn, the one strong, the other weak' (Svet. Up. I,
9) declare their difference. Texts which maintain the non-difference of
a being which is knowing and another which is not knowing, if taken
literally, convey a contradiction--as if one were to say, 'Water the
ground with fire'!-and must therefore be understood in some secondary
metaphorical sense. To hold that the individual soul is a part of
Brahman does not explain matters; for by a 'part' we understand that
which constitutes part of the extension of something. If, then, the soul
occupied part of the extension of Brahman, all its imperfections would
belong to Brahman. Nor can the soul be a part of Brahman if we take
'part' to mean a _piece_ (khanda); for Brahman does not admit of being
divided into pieces, and moreover, the difficulties connected with the
former interpretation would present themselves here also. That something
absolutely different from something else should yet be a part of the
latter cannot in fact be proved.

Or else let it be said that the soul is Brahman affected by error
(bhrama). For this is the teaching of texts such as 'Thou art that';
'this Self is Brahman.' Those texts, on the other hand, which declare
the difference of the two merely restate what is already established by
perception and the other means of knowledge, and therefore are shown, by
those texts the purport of which it is to teach non-duality not
established by other means, to lie--like perception and the other means
of knowledge themselves--within the sphere of Nescience.

Or let it be assumed, in the third place, that the individual soul is
Brahman as determined by a beginningless limiting adjunct (upādhi). For
it is on this ground that Scripture teaches the Self to be Brahman. And
that upādhi must not be said to be a mere erroneous imagination, for on
that view the distinction of bondage, release, and so on, would be
impossible.

Against all these views the Sūtra declares that the soul is a part of
Brahman; since there are declarations of difference and also 'otherwise,'
i.e. declarations of unity. To the former class belong all those texts
which dwell on the distinction of the creator and the creature, the
ruler and the ruled, the all-knowing and the ignorant, the independent
and the dependent, the pure and the impure, that which is endowed with
holy qualities and that which possesses qualities of an opposite kind,
the lord and the dependent. To the latter class belong such texts as
'Thou art that' and 'this Self is Brahman.' Some persons even record
that Brahman is of the nature of slaves, fishermen, and so on. The
Ātharvanikas, that is to say, have the following text,' Brahman are the
slaves. Brahman are these fishers,' and so on; and as Brahman there is
said to comprise within itself all individual souls, the passage teaches
general non-difference of the Self. In order, then, that texts of both
these classes may be taken in their primary, literal sense, we must
admit that the individual soul is a part of Brahman. Nor is it a fact
that the declarations of difference refer to matters settled by other
means of knowledge, such as perception and so on, and on that account
are mere reiterations of something established otherwise (in consequence
of which they would have no original proving force of their own, and
would be sublated by the texts declaring non-duality). For the fact that
the soul is created by Brahman, is ruled by it, constitutes its body, is
subordinate to it, abides in it, is preserved by it, is absorbed by it,
stands to it in the relation of a meditating devotee, and through its
grace attains the different ends of man, viz. religious duty, wealth,
pleasure and final release--all this and what is effected thereby, viz.
the distinction of the soul and Brahman, does not fall within the
cognisance of perception and the other means of proof, and hence is not
established by something else. It is therefore not true that the texts
declaring the creation of the world, and so on, are mere reiterations of
differences established by other means of authoritative knowledge, and
hence have for their purport to teach things that are false.--[Nor will
it do to say that the texts declaring duality teach what indeed is not
established by other means of knowledge but is erroneous.] 'Brahman
conceives the thought of differentiating itself, forms the resolution of
becoming many, and accordingly creates the ether and the other elements,
enters into them as individual soul, evolves all the different forms and
names, takes upon himself all the pleasures and pains which spring from
experiencing the infinite multitude of objects thus constituted, abides
within and inwardly rules all beings, recognises itself in its jīva-
condition to be one with the universal causal Brahman, and finally
accomplishes its release from the samsāra and the body of sacred
doctrine by which this release is effected'--all this the Veda indeed
declares, but its real purport is that all this is only true of a
Brahman under the influence of an illusion, and therefore is unreal!--
while at the same time Brahman is defined as that the essential nature
of which is absolutely pure intelligence! Truly, if such were the
purport of the Veda, what more would the Veda be than the idle talk of a
person out of his mind!

Nor finally is there any good in the theory of the soul being Brahman in
so far as determined by a limiting adjunct. For this view also is in
conflict with the texts which distinguish Brahman as the ruling and the
soul as the ruled principle, and so on. One and the same Devadatta does
not become double as it were--a ruler on the one hand and a ruled
subject on the other--because he is determined by the house in which he
is, or by something else.

In order to be able to account for the twofold designations of the soul,
we must therefore admit that the soul is a _part_ of Brahman.




43. And on account of the mantra.

'One part (quarter) of it are all beings, three feet (quarters) of it
are the Immortal in heaven' (Ch. Up. III, 12, 6)--on account of this
mantra also the soul must be held to be a part of Brahman. For the word
'foot' denotes a part. As the individual souls are many the mantra uses
the plural form 'all beings.' In the Sūtra (42) the word 'part' is in
the singular, with a view to denote the whole class. For the same reason
in II, 3, 18 also the word 'atman' is in the singular. For that the
individual Selfs are different from the Lord, and are many and eternal,
is declared by texts such as 'He who, eternal and intelligent, fulfils
the desires of many who likewise are eternal and intelligent' (Ka. Up.
II, 5, 13). Since thus the plurality of the eternal individual Selfs
rests on good authority, those who have an insight into the true nature
of Selfs will discern without difficulty different characteristics
distinguishing the individual Selfs, although all Selfs are alike in so
far as having intelligence for their essential nature. Moreover the
Sūtra II, 3, 48 directly states the plurality of the individual Selfs.




44. Moreover it is so stated in Smriti.

Smriti moreover declares the individual soul to be a part of the highest
Person, 'An eternal part of myself becomes the individual soul (jīva) in
the world of life' (Bha. Gī. XV, 7). For this reason also the soul must
be held to be a part of Brahman.

But if the soul is a part of Brahman, all the imperfections of the soul
are Brahman's also! To this objection the next Sūtra replies.




45. But as in the case of light and so on. Not so is the highest.

The 'but' discards the objection. 'Like light and so on.' The individual
soul is a part of the highest Self; as the light issuing from a luminous
thing such as fire or the sun is a part of that body; or as the generic
characteristics of a cow or horse, and the white or black colour of
things so coloured, are attributes and hence parts of the things in
which those attributes inhere; or as the body is a part of an embodied
being. For by a part we understand that which constitutes one place
(desa) of some thing, and hence a distinguishing attribute (viseshna) is
a part of the thing distinguished by that attribute. Hence those
analysing a thing of that kind discriminate between the _distinguishing_
clement or part of it, and the _distinguished_ element or part. Now
although the distinguishing attribute and the thing distinguished
thereby stand to each other in the relation of part and whole, yet we
observe them to differ in essential character. Hence there is no
contradiction between the individual and the highest Self--the former of
which is a viseshana of the latter--standing to each other in the
relation of part and whole, and their being at the same time of
essentially different nature. This the Sūtra declares 'not so is the
highest,' i.e. the highest Self is not of the same nature as the
individual soul. For as the luminous body is of a nature different from
that of its light, thus the highest Self differs from the individual
soul which is a part of it. It is this difference of character--due to
the individual soul being the distinguishing clement and the highest
Self being the substance distinguished thereby--to which all those texts
refer which declare difference. Those texts, on the other hand, which
declare non-difference are based on the circumstance that attributes
which are incapable of separate existence are ultimately bound to the
substance which they distinguish, and hence are fundamentally valid.
That in declarations such as 'Thou art that' and 'this Self is Brahman,'
the words _thou_ and _Self_, no less than the words _that_ and _Brahman_,
denote Brahman in so far as having the individual souls for its body,
and that thus the two sets of words denote fundamentally one and the
same thing, has been explained previously.




46. And Smriti texts declare this.

That the world and Brahman stand to each other in the relation of part
and whole, the former being like the light and the latter like the
luminous body, or the former being like the power and the latter like
that in which the power inheres, or the former being like the body and
the latter like the soul; this Parāsara also and other Smriti writers
declare, 'As the light of a fire which abides in one place only spreads
all around, thus this whole world is the power (sakti) of the highest
Brahman.' The 'and' in the Sūtra implies that scriptural texts also ('of
whom the Self is the body' and others) declare that the individual Self
is a part of Brahman in so far as it is its body.

But if all individual souls are equal in so far as being alike parts of
Brahman, alike actuated by Brahman, and alike knowing subjects, what is
the reason that, as Scripture teaches, some of them are allowed to read
the Veda and act according to its injunctions, while others are excluded
therefrom; and again that some are to see, feel, and so on, while others
are excluded from these privileges?--This question is answered by the
next Sūtra.




47. Permission and exclusion (result) from connexion with a body; as in
the case of light and so on.

Although all souls are essentially of the same nature in so far as they
are parts of Brahman, knowing subjects and so on, the permissions and
exclusions referred to are possible for the reason that each individual
soul is joined to some particular body, pure or impure, whether of a
Brāhmana or Kshattriya or Vaisya or Sūdra, and so on. 'As in the case of
fire and so on.' All fire is of the same kind, and yet one willingly
fetches fire from the house of a Brāhmana, while one shuns fire from a
place where dead bodies are burnt. And from a Brāhmana one accepts food
without any objection, while one refuses food from a low person.




48. And on account of non-connectedness there is no confusion.

Although the souls, as being parts of Brahman and so on, are of
essentially the same character, they are actually separate, for each of
them is of atomic size and resides in a separate body. For this reason
there is no confusion or mixing up of the individual spheres of
enjoyment and experience. The Sūtrakāra introduces this reference to an
advantage of his own view of things, in order to intimate that the views
of the soul being Brahman deluded or else Brahman affected by a limiting
adjunct are on their part incapable of explaining how it is that the
experiences of the individual Self and the highest Self, and of the
several individual Selfs, are not mixed up.

But may not, on the view of the soul being Brahman deluded, the
distinction of the several spheres of experience be explained by means
of the difference of the limiting adjuncts presented by Nescience?--This
the next Sūtra negatives.




49. And it is a mere apparent argument.

The argumentation by which it is sought to prove that that being whose
nature is constituted by absolutely uniform light, i.e. intelligence, is
differentiated by limiting adjuncts which presuppose an obscuration of
that essential nature, is a mere apparent (fallacious) one. For, as we
have shown before, obscuration of the light of that which is nothing but
light means destruction of that light.--If we accept as the reading of
the Sūtra 'ābhāsāh' (in plural) the meaning is that the various reasons
set forth by the adherents of that doctrine are all of them fallacious.
The 'and' of the Sūtra is meant to point out that that doctrine,
moreover, is in conflict with texts such as 'thinking himself to be
different from the Mover'(Svet. Up. I, 6); 'there are two unborn ones,
one a ruler, the other not a ruler' (I, 9); 'of those two one eats the
sweet fruit' (V, 6); and others. For even if difference is due to
upādhis which are the figment of Nescience, there is no escaping the
conclusion that the spheres of experience must be mixed up, since the
theory admits that the thing itself with which all the limiting adjuncts
connect themselves is one only.

But this cannot be urged against the theory of the individual soul being
Brahman in so far as determined by real limiting adjuncts; for on that
view we may explain the difference of spheres of experience as due to
the beginningless adrishtas which are the cause of the difference of the
limiting adjuncts!--To this the next Sūtra replies.




50. On account of the non-determination of the adrishtas.

As the adrishtas also which are the causes of the series of upādhis have
for their substrate Brahman itself, there is no reason for their
definite allotment (to definite individual souls), and hence again there
is no definite separation of the spheres of experience. For the limiting
adjuncts as well as the adrishtas cannot by their connexion with Brahman
split up Brahman itself which is essentially one.




51. And it is thus also in the case of purposes and so on.

For the same reason there can be no definite restriction in the case of
purposes and so on which are the causes of the, different adrishtas. (For
they also cannot introduce plurality into Brahman that is fundamentally
one.)




52. Should it be said (that that is possible) owing to the difference of
place; we deny this, on account of (all upādhis) being within (all
places).

Although Brahman is one only and not to be split by the several limiting
adjuncts with which it is connected, yet the separation of the spheres
of enjoyment is not impossible since the places of Brahman which are
connected with the upādhis are distinct.--This the Sūtra negatives on
the ground that, as the upādhis move here and there and hence all places
enter into connexion with all upādhis, the mixing up of spheres of
enjoyment cannot be avoided. And even if the upādhis were connected with
different places, the pain connected with some particular place would
affect the whole of Brahman which is one only.--The two Sūtras II, 3, 32
and 37 have stated an objection against those who, without taking their
stand on the Veda, held the view of an all-pervading soul. The Sūtras II,
3, 50 and ff., on the other hand, combat the view of those who, while
basing their doctrine on the Veda, teach the absolute unity of the Self.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the part.'




FOURTH PĀDA.

1. Thus the prānas.

After having taught that Ether and all the other elements are effects,
and hence have originated, the Sūtras had shown that the individual soul,
although likewise an effect, does not originate in the sense of
undergoing a change of essential nature; and had in connexion therewith
clearly set forth wherein the essential nature of the soul consists.
They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the
instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath.

The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the
individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As
the soul is, thus the prānas are, the Pūrvapakshin maintains. That means--
as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced--For
the latter point no less than the former is directly stated in Scripture;
the wording of the Sūtra 'thus the prānas' being meant to extend to the
case of the prānas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse
was had in the case of the soul.--But what is the scriptural text you
mean?

'Non-being, truly this was in the beginning. Here they say, what was
that? Those Rishis indeed were that Non-being, thus they say. And who
were those Rishis? The prānas indeed were those Rishis.' This is the
passage which declares that before the origination of the world the
Rishis existed. As 'prānāh' is in the plural, we conclude that what is
meant is the organs and the vital air. Nor can this text be interpreted
to mean only that the prānas exist for a very long time (but are not
uncreated); as we may interpret the texts declaring Vāyu and the
atmosphere (antariksha) to be immortal: 'Vāyu and the atmosphere are
immortal'; 'Vāyu is the deity that never sets' (Bri. Up. II, 3, 3; I, 5,
22). For the clause 'Non-being indeed was this in the beginning'
declares that the prānas existed even at the time when the entire world
was in the pralaya state. Those texts, then, which speak of an
origination of the prānas must be explained somehow, just as we did with
the texts referring to the origination of the individual soul.

To this the Siddhāntin replies, 'the prānas also originate in the same
way as ether, and so on.'--Why?--Because we have scriptural texts
directly stating that before creation everything was one, 'Being only
this was in the beginning,' 'The Self only was this in the beginning.'
And moreover, the text 'from that there is produced the prāna and the
mind and all organs'(Mu. Up. II, 3, 1) declares that the organs
originated; they therefore cannot have existed before creation. Nor is
it permissible to ascribe a different meaning to the texts which declare
the origination of the sense-organs--as we may do in the case of the
texts declaring the origination of the soul. For we have no texts
directly denying the origination of the sense-organs, or affirming their
eternity, while we _have_ such texts in the case of the individual soul.
In the text quoted by the Pūrvapakshin, 'Non-being indeed was this in
the beginning,' &c., the word prāna can denote the highest Self only;
for from texts such as 'All these beings indeed enter into breath alone,
and from breath they arise'(Ch. Up. I, 11, 5), the word prāna is known
to be one of the designations of the highest Self. And as to the clause
'the prānas indeed are those Rishis,' we remark that the term Rishi may
properly be applied to the all-seeing highest Self, but not to the non-
intelligent organs.

But how then is the plural form 'the Rishis are the prānas' to be
accounted for? This the next Sūtra explains.




2. (The scriptural statement of the plural) is secondary, on account of
impossibility; and since (the highest Self) is declared before that.

The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal,
but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a
plurality of things. For Scripture declares that previous to creation
the highest Self only exists.




3. On account of speech having for its antecedent that.

For the following reason also the word 'prāna,' in the text quoted, can
denote Brahman only. Speech, i.e. the names which have for their object
all things apart from Brahman, presupposes the existence of the entire
universe of things--ether, and so on--which is the object of speech. But,
as according to the text 'this was then non-differentiated; it was
thereupon differentiated by names and forms,' then (i.e. before the
differentiation of individual things), no things having name and form
existed, there existed also no effects of speech and the other organs of
action and sensation, and hence it cannot be inferred that those organs
themselves existed.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the origination
of the prānas.'




4. (They are seven) on account of the going of the seven and of
specification.

The question here arises whether those organs are seven only, or eleven--
the doubt on this point being due to the conflicting nature of
scriptural texts.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former alternative.--
On what grounds?--'On account of going, and of specification.' For the
text refers to the 'going,' i.e. to the moving about in the different
worlds, together with the soul when being born or dying, of seven prānas
only, 'seven are these worlds in which the prānas move which rest in the
cave, being placed there as seven and seven' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 8)--where
the repetition 'seven and seven' intimates the plurality of souls to
which the prānas are attached. Moreover those moving prānas are
distinctly specified in the following text, 'when the five instruments
of knowledge stand still, together with the mind (manas), and when the
buddhi does not move, that they call the highest "going"' (gati--Ka. Up.
II, 6, 10). The 'highest going' here means the moving towards Release,
all movement within the body having come to an end. As thus the text
declares that at the time of birth and death seven prānas only accompany
the soul, and as, with regard to the condition of final concentration,
those prānas are distinctly specified as forms of knowledge (jńānāni),
we conclude that the prānas are the seven following instruments of the
soul--the organs of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, the
buddhi and the manas. In various other passages indeed, which refer to
the prānas, higher numbers are mentioned, viz. up to fourteen, speech,
the hands, the feet, the anus, the organ of generation, the ahankāra and
the kitta being added to those mentioned above; cp. e.g. 'there are
eight grahas' (Bri. Up. III, 2, i); 'Seven are the prānas of the head,
two the lower ones '(Taitt. Samh. V, 3, 2, 5). But as the text says
nothing about those additional organs accompanying the soul, we assume
that they are called prānas in a metaphorical sense only, since they all,
more or less, assist the soul.--This view the next Sūtra sets aside.




5. But the hands and so on also; (since they assist the soul) abiding
(in the body). Hence (it is) not so.

The organs are not seven only, but eleven, since the hands and the rest
also contribute towards the experience and fruition of that which abides
in the body, i.e. the soul, and have their separate offices, such as
seizing, and so on. Hence it is not so, i.e. it must not be thought that
the hands and the rest are not organs. Buddhi, ahankāra and kitta, on
the other hand, are (not independent organs but) mere designations of the
manas, according as the latter is engaged in the functions of deciding
(adhyavasāya), or misconception (abhimāna), or thinking (kintā). The
organs therefore are eleven. From this it follows that in the passage
'Ten are these prānas in man, and Ātman is the eleventh' (Bri. Up. II, 4,
ii), the word Ātman denotes the manas. The number _eleven_ is confirmed
by scriptural and Smriti passages, cp. 'the ten organs and the one' (Bha.
Gī. XIII, 5); 'ten are the vaikārika beings, the manas is the eleventh,'
and others. Where more organs are mentioned, the different functions of
the manas are meant; and references to smaller numbers are connected
with special effects of the organs, such as accompanying the soul, and
the like.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the going of the seven.'




6. And (they are) minute.

As the text 'these are all alike, all infinite' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 13),
declares speech, mind, and breath to be infinite, we conclude that the
prānas are all-pervading.--To this the Sūtra replies, that they are
minute; for the text 'when the vital breath passes out of the body, all
the prānas pass out after it' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2), proves those prānas to
be of limited size, and as when passing out they are not perceived by
bystanders, they must be of minute size--The text which speaks of them
as infinite is a text enjoining meditation ('he who meditates on them as
infinite'), and infinity there means only that abundance of activities
which is an attribute of the prāna to be meditated on.




7. And the best.

By 'the best' we have to understand the chief vital air (mukhya prāna),
which, in the colloquy of the prānas, is determined to be the best
because it is the cause of the preservation of the body. This chief
vital air the Pūrvapakshin maintains to be something non-created, since
Scripture (Ri. Samh. V, 129, 2), 'By its own law the One was breathing
without wind,' shows that an effect of it, viz. the act of breathing,
existed even previously to creation, at the time of a great pralaya; and
because texts declaring it to have been created--such as 'from him is
born breath' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3)--may be interpreted in the same way as
the texts declaring that the soul is something created (sec p. 540 ff.).--
To this the reply is that, since this view contradicts scriptural
statements as to the oneness of all, previous to creation; and since the
Mundaka-text declares the prāna to have been created in the same way as
earth and the other elements; and since there are no texts plainly
denying its createdness, the chief vital air also must be held to have
been created. The words 'the One was breathing without wind' by no means
refer to the vital breath of living creatures, but intimate the
existence of the highest Brahman, alone by itself; as indeed appears
from the qualification 'without wind.'--That the vital breath, although
really disposed of in the preceding Sūtras, is specially mentioned in
the present Sūtra, is with a view to the question next raised for
consideration.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the minuteness of the
prānas.'




8. Neither air nor function, on account of its being stated separately.

Is this main vital breath nothing else but air, the second of the
elements? Or is it a certain motion of the air? Or is it air that has
assumed some special condition?--The first alternative may be adopted,
on account of the text 'prāna is air.'--Or, since mere air is not called
breath, while this term is generally applied to that motion of air which
consists in inhalation and exhalation, we may hold that breath is a
motion of air.--Of both these views the Sūtra disposes by declaring 'not
so, on account of separate statement.' For in the passage 'From him
there is produced breath, mind, and all sense-organs, ether and air,' &c,
breath and air are mentioned as two separate things. For the same reason
breath also cannot be a mere motion or function of air; for the text
does not mention any functions of fire and the other elements, side by
side with these elements, as separate things (and this shows that breath
also cannot, in that text, be interpreted to denote a function of air).
The text 'prāna is air,' on the other hand, intimates (not that breath
is identical with air, but) that breath is air having assumed a special
form, not a thing altogether different from it, like fire. In ordinary
language, moreover, the word _breath_ does not mean a mere motion but a
substance to which motion belongs; we say,'the breath moves to and fro
in inhalation and exhalation.'

Is breath, which we thus know to be a modification of air, to be
considered as a kind of elementary substance, like fire, earth, and so
on? Not so, the next Sūtra replies.




9. But like the eye and the rest, on account of being taught with them,
and for other reasons.

Breath is not an element, but like sight and the rest, a special
instrument of the soul. This appears from the fact that the texts
mention it together with the recognised organs of the soul, the eye, and
so on; so e.g. in the colloquy of the prānas. And such common mention is
suitable in the case of such things only as belong to one class.--The
'and for other reasons' of the Sūtra refers to the circumstance of the
principal breath being specially mentioned among the organs comprised
under the term 'prāna'; cp. 'that principal breath' (Ch. Up. I, 2, 7);
'that central breath' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 21).--But if the chief breath is,
like the eye and the other organs, an instrument of the soul, there must
be some special form of activity through which it assists the soul, as
the eye e.g. assists the soul by seeing. But no such activity is
perceived, and the breath cannot therefore be put in the same category
as the organs of sensation and action!--To this objection the next Sūtra
replies.




10. And there is no objection on account of its not having an activity
(karana); for (Scripture) thus declares.

The karana of the Sūtra means kriyā, action. The objection raised on the
ground that the principal breath does not exercise any form of activity
helpful to the soul, is without force, since as a matter of fact
Scripture declares that there is such an activity, in so far as the
vital breath supports the body with all its organs. For the text (Ch. Up.
V, 1, 7 ff.) relates how on the successive departure of speech, and so
on, the body and the other organs maintained their strength, while on
the departure of the vital breath the body and all the organs at once
became weak and powerless.--The conclusion therefore is that the breath,
in its fivefold form of prāna, apāna, and so on, subserves the purposes
of the individual soul, and thus occupies the position of an instrument,
no less than the eye and the other organs.

But as those five forms of breath, viz. prāna, udāna, &c., have
different names and functions they must be separate principles (and
hence there is not _one_ principal breath)! To this the next Sūtra
replies.




11. It is designated as having five functions like mind.

As desire, and so on, are not principles different from mind, although
they are different functions and produce different effects--according to
the text, 'Desire, purpose, doubt, faith, want of faith, firmness,
absence of firmness, shame, reflection, fear--all this is mind' (Bri. Up.
I, 5, 3); so, on the ground of the text, 'prāna, apāna, vyāna, udāna,
samāna--all this is prāna' (ibid.), apāna and the rest must be held to
be different functions of prāna only, not independent principles.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of what is 'a modification of air.'




12. And (it is) minute.

This prāna also is minute, since as before (i.e. as in the case of the
organs) the text declares it to pass out of the body, to move, and so on,
'him when he passes out the prāna follows after' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2). A
further doubt arises, in the case of prāna, owing to the fact that in
other texts it is spoken of as of large extent, 'It is equal to these
three worlds, equal to this Universe' (Bri. Up. I, 3, 22); 'On prāna
everything is founded'; 'For all this is shut up in prāna.' But as the
texts declaring the passing out, and so on, of the prāna, prove it to be
of limited size, the all-embracingness ascribed to prāna in those other
texts must be interpreted to mean only that the life of all living and
breathing creatures depends on breath.--Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'the minuteness of the best.'




13. But the rule (over the prānas) on the part of Fire and the rest,
together with him to whom the prāna belong (i.e. the soul), is owing to
the thinking of that (viz. the highest Self); on account of scriptural
statement.

It has been shown that the prānas, together with the main prāna,
originate from Brahman, and have a limited size. That the prānas are
guided by Agni and other divine beings has also been explained on a
previous occasion, viz. under Sū. II, 1, 5. And it is known from
ordinary experience that the organs are ruled by the individual soul,
which uses them as means of experience and fruition. And this is also
established by scriptural texts, such as 'Having taken these prānas he
(i.e. the soul) moves about in his own body, according to his
pleasure'(Bri. Up. II, 1, 18). The question now arises whether the rule
of the soul and of the presiding divine beings over the prānas depends
on them (i.e. the soul and the divinities) only, or on some other being.--
On them only, since they depend on no one else!--Not so, the Sūtra
declares. The rule which light, and so on, i.e. Agni and the other
divinities, together with him to whom the prānas belong i.e. the soul,
exercise over the prānas, proceeds from the thinking of that, i.e. from
the will of the highest Self.--How is this known?--'From scriptural
statement.' For Scripture teaches that the organs, together with their
guiding divinities and the individual soul, depend in all their doings
on the thought of the highest Person. 'He, who abiding within Fire,
rules Fire from within.--He, who abiding within the air--within the Self--
within the eye, and so on' (Bri. Up III, 7); 'From fear of it the wind
blows, from fear of it the sun rises, from fear of it Agni and Indra,
yea Death runs as the fifth' (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1); 'By the command of
that Imperishable one, sun and moon stand, held apart'(Bri Up III, 8, 9).




14. And on account of the eternity of this.

As the quality, inhering in all things, of being ruled by the highest
Self, is eternal and definitely fixed by being connected with his
essential nature, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the rule of the
soul and of the divinities over the organs depends on the will of the
highest Self. The text, 'Having sent forth this he entered into it,
having entered into it he became sat and tyat' (Taitt. Up. II, 6), shows
that the entering on the part of the highest Person into all things, so
as to be their ruler, is connected with his essential nature. Similarly
Smriti says, 'Pervading this entire Universe by a portion of mine I do
abide' (Bha. Gī. X, 42).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the rule of
Fire and the rest.'




15. They, with the exception of the best, are organs, on account of
being so designated.

Are all principles called prānas to be considered as 'organs'
(indriyāni), or is the 'best,' i.e. the chief prāna, to be excepted?--
All of them, without exception, are organs; for they all are called
prānas equally, and they all are instruments of the soul.--Not so, the
Sūtra replies. The 'best' one is to be excepted, since only the prawas
other than the best are designated as organs. Texts such as 'the organs
are ten and one' (Bha. Gī. XIII, 5) apply the term 'organ' only to the
senses of sight and the rest, and the internal organ.




16. On account of scriptural statement of difference, and on account of
difference of characteristics.

Texts such as 'from him is born prāna, and the internal organ, and all
organs' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3) mention the vital breath separately from the
organs, and this shows that the breath is not one of the organs. The
passage indeed mentions the internal organ (manas) also as something
separate; but in other passages the manas is formally included in the
organs, 'the (five) organs with mind as the sixth' (Bha. Gī. XV, 7).
That the vital breath differs in nature from the organ of sight and the
rest, is a matter of observation. For in the state of deep sleep the
function of breath is seen to continue, while those of the eye, and so
on, are not perceived. The work of the organs, inclusive of the manas,
is to act as instruments of cognition and action, while the work of
breath is to maintain the body and the organs. It is for the reason that
the subsistence of the organs depends on breath, that the organs
themselves are called prānas. Thus Scripture says, 'they all became the
form of that (breath), and therefore they are called after him prānas'
(Bri. Up. I, 5, 21). 'They became its form' means--they became its body,
their activity depended on it.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the
_organs_.'




17. But the making of names and forms (belongs) to him who renders
tripartite, on account of scriptural teaching.

The Sūtras have shown that the creation of the elements and organs in
their collective aspect (samashti) and the activity of the individual
souls proceed from the highest Self; and they have also further
confirmed the view that the rule which the souls exercise over their
organs depends on the highest Self. A question now arises with regard to
the creation of the world in its discrete aspect (vyashti), which
consists in the differentiation of names and forms (i.e. of individual
beings). Is this latter creation the work of Hiranyagarbha only, who
represents the collective aggregate of all individual souls; or,
fundamentally, the work of the highest Brahman having Hiranyagarbha for
its body--just as the creation of water e.g. is the work of the highest
Brahman having sire for its body?--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former
alternative. For, he says, the text 'Having entered with this living-
soul-self (anena jīvenāt-manā), let me differentiate names and forms'
(Ch. Up. VI, 3, 2), declares the jīva-soul to be the agent in
differentiation. For the resolve of the highest deity is expressed, not
in the form 'let me differentiate names and forms by myself (svena
rūpena), but 'by this soul-self,' i.e. by a part of the highest Self, in
the form of the individual soul.--But on this interpretation the first
person in 'vyākaravāni' (let me enter), and the grammatical form of
'having entered,' which indicates the agent, could not be taken in their
literal, but only in an implied, sense--as is the case in a sentence
such as 'Having entered the hostile army by means of a spy, I will
estimate its strength' (where the real agent is not the king, who is the
speaker, but the spy).--The cases are not analogous, the Pūrvapakshin
replies. For the king and the spy are fundamentally separate, and hence
the king is agent by implication only. But in the case under discussion
the soul is a part, and hence contributes to constitute the essential
nature of, the highest Self; hence that highest Self itself enters and
differentiates in the form of the soul. Nor can it be said that the
instrumental case ('with this soul-self') has the implied meaning of
association ('together with this soul-self'); for if a case can be taken
in its primary sense, it is not proper to understand it in a sense which
has to be expressed by means of a preposition. But the third case,
jīvena, cannot here be understood even in its primary sense, i.e. that
of the instrument of the action; for if Brahman is the agent in the acts
of entering and differentiating, the soul is not that which is most
suitable to accomplish the end of action (while yet grammar defines the
_instrumental_ case--karana--on this basis). Nor can it be said that the
activity of the soul comes to an end with the entering, while the
differentiation of names and forms is Brahman's work, for the past
participle (pravisya) indicates (according to the rules of grammar) that
the two actions--of entering and differentiating--belong to the same
agent. And although the soul as being a part of the highest Self shares
in its nature, yet in order to distinguish it from the highest Self, the
text by means of the clause 'with _that_ living Self refers to it as
something outward (not of the nature of the Self). The agent in the
action of differentiation of names and forms therefore is Hiranyagarbha.
Smriti texts also ascribe to him this activity; cp.'he in the beginning
made, from the words of the Veda, the names and forms of beings, of the
gods and the rest, and of actions.'

Against this view the Sūtra declares itself. The differentiation of
names and forms belongs to him who renders tripartite, i.e. the highest
Brahman; since it is assigned by Scripture to the latter only. For the
text 'That divinity thought, let me, having entered these three beings
with this living-soul-self, differentiate names and forms--let me make
each of these three tripartite,' shows that all the activities mentioned
have one and the same agent. But the rendering tripartite cannot belong
to Brahma (Hiranyagarbha), who abides within the Brahma-egg, for that
egg itself is produced from fire, water, and earth, only after these
elements have been rendered tripartite; and Smriti says that Brahmā
himself originated in that egg, 'in that egg there originated Brahmā,
the grandfather of all the worlds.' As thus the action of rendering
tripartite can belong to the highest Brahman only, the differentiation
of names and forms, which belongs to the same agent, also is Brahman's
only.--But how then does the clause 'with that living-soul-self' fit in?--
The co-ordination 'with that soul, with the Self,' shows that the term
'soul' here denotes the highest Brahman as having the soul for its body;
just as in the clauses 'that fire thought'; 'it sent forth water';
'water thought,' and so on, what is meant each time is Brahman having
fire, water, and so on, for its body. The work of differentiating names
and forms thus belongs to the highest Brahman which has for its body
Hiranyagarbha, who represents the soul in its aggregate form. On this
view the first person (in 'let me differentiate') and the agency
(conveyed by the form of 'pravisya') may, without any difficulty, be
taken in their primary literal senses; and the common agency, implied in
the connexion of pravisya and vyākaravāni, is accounted for. The view
here set forth as to the relation of Brahman and Hiranyagarbha also
explains how the accounts of Hiranyagarbha's (Brahmā's) creative
activity can say that he differentiated names and forms.

The whole passus beginning 'that divinity thought,' therefore has the
following meaning--'Having entered into those three beings, viz. Fire,
Water, and Earth, with my Self which is qualified by the collective soul
(as constituting its body), let me differentiate names and forms, i.e.
let me produce gods and all the other kinds of individual beings, and
give them names; and to that end, since fire, water, and earth have not
yet mutually combined, and hence are incapable of giving rise to
particular things, let me make each of them tripartite, and thus fit
them for creation.'--The settled conclusion then is, that the
differentiation of names and forms is the work of the highest Brahman
only.

But, an objection is raised, the fact that the differentiation of names
and forms must be due to the same agent as the rendering tripartite,
does not after all prove that the former is due to the highest Self. For
the rendering tripartite may itself belong to the individual soul. For
the text relates how, after the creation of the cosmic egg, a process of
tripartition was going on among the individual living beings created by
Brahmā. 'Learn from me, my friend, how those three beings having reached
man become tripartite, each of them. The earth when eaten is disposed of
in three ways; its grossest portion becomes feces, its middle portion
flesh, its subtlest portion mind,' and so on. Similarly, in the
preceding section, it is described how the process of tripartition goes
on in the case of fire, sun, moon, and lightning, which all belong to
the world created by Brahmā, 'the red colour of burning fire is the
colour of fire,' &c. And the text moreover states the original
tripartition to have taken place after the differentiation of names and
forms: 'That divinity having entered into these three beings
differentiated names and forms. Each of these (beings) it rendered
tripartite.'--To this objection the next Sūtra replies.




18. Flesh is of earthy nature; in the case of the two others also
according to the text.

The view that the description of tripartition, given in the passage
'each of these he made tripartite,' refers to a time subsequent to the
creation of the mundane egg and to the gods created by Brahmā, cannot be
upheld. For from it there would follow that, as in the passage 'earth
when eaten is disposed of in three ways,' &c., flesh is declared to be
more subtle than feces, and mind yet subtler, it would have to be
assumed--in agreement with the nature of the causal substance--that
flesh is made of water and manas of fire [FOOTNOTE 581:1]. And similarly
we should have to assume that urine--which is the grossest part of
water drunk (cp. VI, 5, 2)--is of the nature of earth, and breath, which
is its subtlest part, of the nature of fire. But this is not admissible;
for as the text explicitly states that earth when eaten is disposed of
in three ways, flesh and mind also must be assumed to be of an earthy
nature. In the same way we must frame our view concerning 'the two
others,' i.e. water and fire, 'according to the text.' That means--the
three parts into which water divides itself when drunk, must be taken to
be all of them modifications of water, and the three parts of fire when
consumed must be held to be all of them modifications of fire. Thus
feces, flesh and mind are alike transformations of earth; urine, blood
and breath transformations of water; bones, marrow and speech
transformations of fire.

This moreover agrees with the subsequent statement (VI, 5, 4), 'For,
truly, mind consists of earth, breath of water, speech of fire.' The
process of tripartition referred to in VI, 3, 4, is not therefore the
same as the one described in the section that tells us what becomes of
food when eaten, water when drunk, &c. Were this (erroneous) assumption
made, and were it thence concluded that mind, breath and speech--as
being the subtlest created things--are made of fire, this would flatly
contradict the complementary text quoted above ('mind consists of earth,'
&c.). When the text describes how earth, water and fire, when eaten,
are transformed in a threefold way, it refers to elements which had
already been rendered tripartite; the process of tripartition must
therefore have taken place before the creation of the cosmic egg.
Without such tripartition the elements would be incapable of giving rise
to any effects; such capability they acquire only by being mutually
conjoined, and that is just the process of tripartition. In agreement
herewith Smriti says, 'Separate from each other, without connexion,
those elements with their various powers were incapable of producing
creatures. Bul having combined completely, entered into mutual
conjunction, abiding one within the other, the principles--from the
highest Mahat down to individual things--produced the mundane egg.'--
When the text therefore says (VI, 3, 3) 'The divinity having entered
into those three beings with that soul-self differentiated names and
forms; he made each of these tripartite,' the order in which the text
mentions the activities of differentiation and tripartition is refuted
by the order demanded by the sense [FOOTNOTE 583:1].--The text then
proceeds to exemplify the process of tripartition, by means of burning
fire, the sun and lightning, which indeed are things contained within
the mundane egg (while yet the tripartition of elements took place
before the egg, with all its contents, was created); but this is done
for the information of Svetaketu, who himself is a being within the
mundane egg, and has to be taught with reference to things he knows.

But, a final objection is raised, as on this view of the matter the
elements--earth, water and fire--which are eaten and drunk, are already
tripartite, each of them containing portions of all, and thus are of a
threefold nature, how can they be designated each of them by a simple
term--_earth_, _water_, _fire_?--To this the next Sūtra replies.

[FOOTNOTE 581:1. I.e. if the tripartition of earth (i. e. solid food)
when eaten, which is described in VI, 5, 1, were the same tripartition
which is described in VI, 3, 3-4, we should have to conclude that the
former tripartition consists, like the latter, in an admixture to earth
of water and fire.]

[FOOTNOTE 583:1. That means--in reality the tripartition of the elements
came first, and after that the creation of individual beings.]




19. But on account of their distinctive nature there is that designation,
that designation.

Each element indeed is of a threefold nature, owing to the primary
tripartition; but as in each mixed element one definite element prevails--
so that each element has a distinctive character of its own--a definite
designation is given to each.--The repetition (of 'that designation') in
the Sūtra indicates the completion of the adhyāya.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the fashioning of names and forms.'




THIRD ADHYĀYA.

FIRST PĀDA.

1. In obtaining another of that, it goes enveloped, (as appears) from
question and explanation.

That the Vedānta-texts establish as the proper object of meditation, on
the part of all men desirous of Release, the highest Brahman, which is
the only cause of the entire world, which is not touched by even a
shadow of imperfection, which is an ocean, as it were, of supremely
exalted qualities, and which totally differs in nature from all other
beings--this is the point proved in the two previous adhyāyas; there
being given at the same time arguments to disprove the objections raised
against the Vedānta doctrine on the basis of Smriti and reasoning, to
refute the views held by other schools, to show that the different
Vedānta-texts do not contradict each other, and to prove that the Self
is the object of activities (enjoined in injunctions of meditation, and
so on). In short, those two adhyāyas have set forth the essential nature
of Brahman. The subsequent part of the work now makes it its task to
enquire into the mode of attaining to Brahman, together with the means
of attainment. The third adhyāya is concerned with an enquiry into
meditation--which is the means of attaining to Brahman; and as the
motive for entering on such meditation is supplied by the absence of all
desire for what is other than the thing to be obtained, and by the
desire for that thing, the points first to be enquired into are the
imperfections of the individual soul--moving about in the different
worlds, whether waking or dreaming or merged in dreamless sleep, or in
the state of swoon; and those blessed characteristics by which Brahman
is raised above all these imperfections. These are the topics of the
first and second pādas of the adhyāya.

The first question to be considered is whether the soul, when moving
from one body into another, is enveloped by those subtle rudiments of
the elements from which the new body is produced, or not. The
Pūrvapakshin maintains the latter alternative; for, he says, wherever
the soul goes it can easily provide itself there with those rudiments.
Other reasons supporting this primā facie view will be mentioned and
refuted further on.--The Sūtra states the view finally accepted, 'In
obtaining another "of that" it goes enveloped.' The 'of that' refers
back to the form, i.e. body, mentioned in II, 4, 17. The soul when
moving towards another embodiment goes enveloped by the rudiments of the
elements. This is known 'from question and explanation,' i.e. answer.
Question and answer are recorded in the 'Knowledge of the five fires'
(Ch. Up. V, 3-10), where Pravāhana, after having addressed to Svetaketu
several other questions, finally asks 'Do you know why in the fifth
libation water is called man?' In answer to this last question the text
then explains how the Devas, i.e. the prānas attached to the soul, offer
into the heavenly world, imagined as a sacrificial fire, the oblation
called sraddhā; how this sraddhā changes itself into a body con sisting
of amrita, which body is called moon; how the same prānas offer this
body of amrita in Parjanya, imagined as a fire, whereupon the body so
offered becomes rain; how the same prānas throw that rain on to the
earth, also imagined as a sacrificial fire, whereupon it becomes food;
how this food is then offered into man, also compared to fire, where it
becomes seed; and how, finally, this seed is offered into woman, also
compared to a fire, and there becomes an embryo. The text then goes on,
'Thus in the fifth oblation water becomes purushavakas,' i.e. to be
designated by the term _man_. And this means that the water which, in a
subtle form, was throughout present in the previous oblations also, now,
in that fifth oblation, assumes the form of a man.--From this question
and answer it thus appears that the soul moves towards a new embodiment,
together with the subtle rudiments from which the new body springs.--But
the words, 'water becomes purushavakas,' only intimate that water
assumes the form of a man, whence we conclude that water only invests
the soul during its wanderings; how then can it be held that the soul
moves invested by the rudiments of all elements?--To this question the
next Sūtra replies.




2. But on account of (water) consisting of the three elements; on
account of predominance.

Water alone could not produce a new body; for the text Ch. Up. VI, 3, 4,
'Each of these he made tripartite,' shows that all the elements were'
made tripartite to the end of producing bodies. That the text under
discussion mentions water only, is due to the predominance of water; and
that among the elements giving rise to a new body water predominates, we
infer from the fact that blood and the other humours are the
predominating element in the body.




3. And on account of the going of the prānas.

That the soul goes embedded in the subtle rudiments of the elements
follows therefrom also that when passing out of the old body it is said
to be followed by the prānas, 'when he thus passes out, the chief prāna
follows after him,' &c. (Bri. Up. V, 4, 2). Compare also Smriti: 'It
draws to itself the organs of sense, with the mind for the sixth. When
the Ruler (soul) obtains a new body, and passes out of another, he takes
with him those organs and then moves on, as the wind takes the odours
from their abodes (the flowers)' (Bha. Gī. XV, 8). But the prānas cannot
move without a substrate, and hence we must admit that the rudiments of
the elements--which are their substrate--are also moving.




4. If it be said (that it is not so) on account of scriptural statement
as to going to Agni and the rest; we say no, on account of the secondary
nature (of the statement).

But the text, 'when the speech of the dead person enters into fire,' &c.
(Bri. Up. III, 2, 13). declares that when a person dies his organs go
into fire, and so on; they cannot therefore accompany the soul. Hence
the text which asserts the latter point must be explained in some other
way!--Not so, the Sūtra replies. The text stating that the organs go to
fire, and so on, cannot be taken in its literal sense; for it continues,
'the hairs of the body enter into herbs, the hair of the head into
trees' (which manifestly is not true, in its literal sense). The going
of speech, the eye, and so on, must therefore be understood to mean that
the different organs approach the divinities (Agni and the rest) who
preside over them.




5. Should it be said, on account of absence of mention in the first
(reply); we say no, for just that (is meant), on the ground of fitness.

An objection is raised to the conclusion arrived at under III, 1, 1; on
the ground that in the first oblation, described in Ch. Up. V, 4, 2, as
being made into the heavenly world, water is not mentioned at all as the
thing offered. The text says, 'on that altar the gods offer sraddhā';
and by sraddhā (belief) everybody understands a certain activity of mind.
Water therefore is not the thing offered.--Not so, we reply. It is
nothing else but water, which there is called sraddhā. For thus only
question and answer have a sense. For the question is, 'Do you know why
in the fifth libation water is called man?' and at the outset of the
reply sraddhā is mentioned as constituting the oblation made into the
heavenly world viewed as a fire. If here the word sraddhā did not denote
water, question and answer would refer to different topics, and there
would be no connexion. The form in which the final statement is
introduced (iti tu pańkamyām, &c., 'but thus in the fifth oblation,' &c.),
moreover, also intimates that sraddhā means water. The word 'iti,'
_thus_, here intimates that the answer is meant to dispose of the
question, 'Do you know _how_?' &c. Sraddhā becomes moon, rain, food,
seed, embryo in succession, and _thus_ the water comes to be called man.
Moreover, the word sraddhā is actually used in the Veda in the sense of
'water'; 'he carries water, sraddhā indeed is water' (Taitt. Samh. I, 6,
8, 1). Aad what the text says as to king Soma (the moon) originating
from sraddhā when offered, also shows that sraddhā must mean water.




6. 'On account of this not being stated by Scripture'; not so, on
account of those who perform sacrifices and so on being understood.

But, a further objection is raised, in the whole section under
discussion no mention at all is made of the soul; the section cannot
therefore prove that the soul moves, enveloped by water. The text speaks
only of different forms of water sraddhā and the rest.--This, the Sūtra
points out, is not so, on account of those who perform sacrifices being
understood. For further on in the same chapter it is said, that those
who, while destitute of the knowledge of Brahman, practise sacrifices,
useful works and alms, reach the heavenly world and become there of the
essence of the moon (somarājānah); whence, on the results of their good
works being exhausted, they return again and enter on a new embryonic
state (Ch. Up. V, 10). Now in the preceding section (V, 9) it is said
that they offer sraddhā in the heavenly world, and that from that
oblation there arises the king Soma--an account which clearly refers to
the same process as the one described in V, 10. We herefrom infer that
what is meant in V, 9 is that that being which was distinguished by a
body of sraddhā, becomes a being distinguished by a body of the nature
of the moon. The word body denotes that the nature of which it is to be
the attribute of a soul, and thus extends in its connotation up to the
soul. The meaning of the section therefore is that it is the soul which
moves enveloped by water and the other rudimentary elements.--But the
phrase 'him the gods eat' (V, 10, 4) shows that the king Soma cannot be
the soul, for that cannot be eaten!--To this the next Sūtra replies.




7. Or it is metaphorical, on account of their not knowing the Self. For
thus Scripture declares.

He who performs sacrifices, and so on, and thus does not know the Self,
is here below and in yonder world a mere means of enjoyment for the
devas. He serves them here, by propitiating them with sacrifices, and so
on; and when the gods, pleased with his service, have taken him up into
yonder world, he there is a common means of enjoyment for them (since
they are gratified by the presence of a faithful servant). That those
not knowing the Self serve and benefit the gods, Scripture explicitly
declares, 'He is like a beast for the devas' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). Smriti
also declares, that while those who know the Self attain to Brahman,
those who do not know it are means of enjoyment for the devas, 'To the
gods go the worshippers of the gods, and they that are devoted to me go
to me' (Bha. Gī. VII, 23). When Scripture speaks of the soul being eaten
by the gods, it therefore only means that the soul is to them a source
of enjoyment. That eating the soul means no more than satisfaction with
it, may also be inferred from the following scriptural passage, 'The
gods in truth do not eat nor do they drink; by the mere sight of that
amrita they are satisfied.'--It thus remains a settled conclusion that
the soul moves enveloped by the subtle rudiments of the elements.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the obtaining of another body.'




8. On the passing away of the works, with a remainder, according to
Scripture and Smriti; as it went and not so.

The text declares that those who only perform sacrifices and useful
works ascend by the road of the fathers, and again return to the earth
when they have fully enjoyed the fruit of their works, 'having dwelt
there yāvat sampātam, they return by the same way' (Ch. Up. V, 10, 5).
The question here arises whether the descending soul carries a certain
remainder (anusaya) of its works or not.--It does not, since it has
enjoyed the fruit of all its works. For by 'anusaya' we have to
understand that part of the karman which remains over and above the part
retributively enjoyed; but when the fruit of the entire karman has been
enjoyed, there is no such remainder. And that this is so we learn from
the phrase 'yāvat sampātam ushitvā,' which means 'having dwelt there as
long as the karman lasts' (sampatanty anena svargalokam iti sampātah).
Analogously another text says, 'Having obtained the end of whatever deed
he does on earth, he again returns from that world to this world to
action' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 6).--Against this primā facie view the Sūtra
declares 'with a remainder he descends, on account of what is seen, i.e.
scriptural text, and Smriti.' The scriptural text is the one 'Those
whose conduct has been good' (V, 10, 7), which means that among the
souls that have returned, those whose karman is good obtain a good birth
as Brāhmanas or the like, while those whose karman is bad are born again
as low creatures-dogs, pigs, Kāndālas, and the like. This shows that the
souls which have descended are still connected with good or evil karman.
Smriti also declares this: 'Men of the several castes and orders, who
always stand firm in the works prescribed for them, enjoy after death
the rewards of their works, and by virtue of a remnant (of their works)
they are born again in excellent countries, castes and families, endowed
with beauty, long life, learning in the Vedas, wealth, good conduct,
happiness and wisdom. Those who act in a contrary manner perish'
(Gautama Dha. Sū. XI, 29); 'Afterwards when a man returns to this world
he obtains, by virtue of a remainder of works, birth in a good family,
beauty of form, beauty of complexion, strength, aptitude for learning,
wisdom, wealth, and capacity for fulfilling his duties. Therefore,
rolling like a wheel (from the one to the other), in both worlds he
dwells in happiness' (Āpast. Dha. Sū. II, 1, 2, 3). The clause 'as long
as his works last' (yāvat-sampātam) refers to that part of his works
only which was performed with a view to reward (as promised for those
works by the Veda); and the same holds true with regard to the passage
'whatever work man does here on earth' (Bri. Up. V, 4, 6). Nor is it
possible that works, the fruit of which has not yet been enjoyed, and
those the result of which has not been wiped out by expiatory ceremonies,
should be destroyed by the enjoyment of the fruits of other works. Hence
those who have gone to that world return with a remnant of their works,
'as they went and not so'--i.e. in the same way as they ascended and
also in a different way. For the ascent takes place by the following
stages--smoke, night, the dark half of the moon, the six months of the
sun's southern progress, the world of the fathers, ether, moon. The
descent, on the other hand, goes from the place of the moon, through
ether, wind, smoke, mist, cloud. The two journeys are alike in so far as
they pass through ether, but different in so far as the descent touches
wind, and so on, and does not touch the world of the fathers, and other
stages of the ascent.




9. 'On account of conduct'; not so, since (karana) connotes works; thus
Kārshnājini thinks.

In the phrases 'those whose works were good' (ramanīya-karanāh), and
'those whose works were bad' (kapūyā-karanāh), the word karana does not
denote good and evil works (i.e. not such works as the Veda on the one
hand enjoins as leading to certain rewards, and on the other prohibits,
threatening punishment), for, in Vedic as well as ordinary language, the
term karana is generally used in the sense of ākāra, i.e. general
conduct. In ordinary speech such words as ākāra, sīla, vritta are
considered synonymous, and in the Veda we read 'whatever works (karmāni)
are blameless, those should be regarded, not others. Whatever our good
conduct (su-karitāni) was, that should be observed by thee, nothing
else' (Taitt. Up. I, 11, 2)--where 'works' and 'conduct' are
distinguished. Difference in quality of birth therefore depends on
conduct, not on the remainder of works performed with a view to certain
results.--This primā facie view the Sūtra sets aside, 'not so, because
the scriptural term karana connotes works; thus the teacher Kārshnājini
thinks.' For mere conduct does not lead to experiences of pleasure and
pain; pleasure and pain are the results of _works_ in the limited sense.




10. 'There is purposelessness'; not so, on account of the dependence on
that.

But if conduct has no result, it follows that good conduct, as enjoined
in the Smritis, is useless!--Not so, we reply; for holy works enjoined
by the Veda depend on conduct, in so far as a man of good conduct only
is entitled to perform those works. This appears from passages such as
the following: 'A man who is not pure is unfit for all religious work,'
and 'Him who is devoid of good conduct the Vedas do not purify.'
Kārshnājini's view thus is, that the karana of the text implies karman.




11. But only good and evil works, thus Bādari thinks.

As the verb ā-kar takes karman for its object (punyam karmā karati, &c.),
and as the separate denotation (i.e. the use of apparently equivalent
words, viz. ākar and karman) can be accounted for on the ground that one
of them refers to works established by manifest texts, and the other to
texts inferred from actually existing rules of good conduct; and as,
when the primary meaning is possible, no secondary meaning must be
adopted; nothing else but good and evil works (in the Vedic sense) are
denoted by the word karana: such is the opinion of the teacher Bādari.
This opinion of Bādari, the author of the Sūtra states as representing
his own. On the other hand, he adopts the view of Kārshnajini in so far
as he considers such items of virtuous _conduct_ as the Sandhyā--which
are enjoined by scriptural texts, the existence of which is inferred on
the basis of conduct as enjoined by Smriti--to have the result of
qualifying the agent for the performance of other works.--The conclusion
therefore is that the souls descend, carrying a remnant of their works.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the passing of works.'




12. Of those also who do not perform sacrifices (the ascent) is declared
by Scripture.

It has been said that those who perform only sacrifices, and so on, go
to the moon and thence return with a remainder of their works. The
question now arises whether those also who do not perform sacrifices go
to the moon. The phrase 'who do not perform sacrifices' denotes evil-
doers of two kinds, viz. those who do not do what is enjoined, and those
who do what is forbidden.--These also go to the moon, the Pūrvapakshin
maintains; for the text contains a statement to that effect, 'All who
depart from this world go to the moon' (Ka. Up. I, 2)--where it is said
that all go, without any distinction. So that those who perform good
works and those who perform evil works, equally go to the moon.--This
the next Sūtra negatives.




13. But of the others having enjoyed in Samyamana, there is ascent and
descent; as such a course is declared.

Of the others, i.e. those who do not perform sacrifices, and so on,
there is ascent to the moon and descent from there, only after they have
in the kingdom of Yama suffered the punishments due to their actions.
For the text declares that evil-doers fall under the power of Yama, and
have to go to him, 'He who thinks, this is the world there is no other,
falls again and again under my sway' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 6); 'the son of
Vivasvat, the gathering place of men' (Rik Samh. X, 14, 1); 'King Yama,'
and other texts.




14. Smriti texts also declare this.

That all beings are under the sway of Yama, Parāsara also and other
Smriti writers declare, 'And all these pass under the sway of Yama.'




15. Moreover there are seven.

The Smritis moreover declare that there are seven hells, called Raurava,
and so on, to which evil-doers have to go.--But how do they, if moving
about in those seven places, reach the palace of Yama?




16. On account of his activity there also, there is no contradiction.

As their going to those seven places also is due to the command of Yama,
there is no contradiction.--Thus those also who do not perform
sacrifices, and so on, after having gone to the world of Yama, and there
undergone punishments according to the nature of their works, later on
ascend to the moon and again descend from there.--Of this conclusion the
next Sūtra disposes.




17. But, of knowledge and work--as these are the leading topics.

The 'but' sets aside the view developed so far. It cannot be admitted
that those also who do not perform sacrifices, and so on, reach the moon;
because the path of the gods and the path of the fathers are meant for
the enjoyment of the fruits 'of knowledge and work.'That is to say--as
those who do not perform sacrifices cannot ascend by the path of the
gods, since they are destitute of knowledge; so they also cannot go by
the path of the fathers, since they are destitute of meritorious works.
And that these two paths are dependent respectively on knowledge and
works, we know from the fact that these two are the leading topics. For
knowledge forms the leading topic with regard to the path of the gods,
'Those who know this, and those who in the forest follow faith and
austerities, go to light,' &c.; and works have the same position with
regard to the path of the fathers, "they who living in a village perform
sacrifices, &c. go to the smoke," &c. The text, 'all those who depart
from this world go to the moon,' must therefore be interpreted to mean
'all those who perform sacrifices go to the moon.'--But if evil-doers do
not go to the moon, the fifth oblation cannot take place, and no new
body can be produced. For the text says, 'In the fifth oblation water is
called man,' and, as we have shown, that fifth oblation presupposes the
soul's going to the moon. In order, therefore, to understand how in
their case also a new embodiment is possible, it must needs be admitted
that they also ascend to the moon.--To this the next Sūtra replies.




18. Not in the case of the third (place), as it is thus perceived.

The third 'place' does not, for the origination of a new body, depend on
the fifth oblation. The term,'the third place,' denotes mere evil-doers.
That these do not, for the origination of a new body, depend on the
fifth oblation, is seen from Scripture. For, in answer to the question
'Do you know why that world never becomes full?' the text says, 'On
neither of these two ways are those small creatures continually
returning, of whom it may be said, Live and die. This is the third place.
Therefore that world never becomes full.' As this passage states that in
consequence of 'the third place' (i.e. the creatures forming a third
class) not ascending to and descending from the heavenly world that
world never becomes full, it follows that that third place does not, for
the origination of bodies, depend on the fifth oblation. The clause, 'in
the fifth oblation,' moreover, merely states that the connexion of water
with the fifth fire is the cause of the water 'being called man' (i. e.
becoming an embryo), but does not deny the origination of embryos in
other ways; for the text contains no word asserting such a limitation.




19. It moreover is recorded, in the world.

Smriti, moreover, states that the bodies of some specially meritorious
persons, such as Draupadī, Dhrishtadyumna and others, were formed
independently of the fifth oblation' (i.e. sexual union).




20. And on account of its being seen.

And it is seen in Scripture also, that the bodies of some beings
originate independently of the fifth oblation: 'Of all beings there are
indeed three origins only, that which springs from an egg, that which
springs from a living being, that which springs from a germ' (Ch. Up. VI,
3, 1). It is observed that from among these beings those springing from
a germ and those springing from heat originate without that fifth
oblation.--But the text quoted does not refer to the creatures springing
from heat; for it says that there are three origins only!--To this the
next Sūtra replies.




21. The third term includes that which springs from heat.

Creatures sprung from heat are included in the third term--viz. that
which springs from a germ--which is exhibited in the text quoted. The
settled conclusion therefore is that the evil-doers do not go to the
moon.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'those who do not perform
sacrifices.'




22. There is entering into similarity of being with those, there being a
reason.

The text describes the manner in which those who perform sacrifices, and
so on, descend from the moon as follows: 'They return again that way as
they came, to the ether, from the ether to the air. Then having become
air they become smoke, having become smoke they become mist,' &c. The
doubt here arises whether the soul when reaching ether, and so on,
becomes ether in the same sense as here on earth it becomes a man or
other being, or merely becomes similar to ether, and so on.--The former
view is the true one; for as the soul in the sraddhā state becomes the
moon, so it must likewise be held to _become_ ether, and so on, there
being no reason for a difference in the two cases.--This primā facie
view the Sūtra sets aside. The descending soul enters into similarity of
being with ether, and so on; since there is a reason for this. When the
soul becomes a man or becomes the moon, there is a reason for that,
since it thereby becomes capacitated for the enjoyment of pain and
pleasure. But there is no similar reason for the soul becoming ether,
and so on, and hence the statement that the soul becomes ether, and so
on, can only mean that, owing to contact with them, it becomes similar
to them.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'entering into similarity of
being.'




23. Not very long; on account of special statement.

Does the soul in its descent through ether, and so on, stay at each
stage for a not very long time, or is there nothing to define that time?--
It stays at each stage for an indefinite time, there being nothing to
define the time.--

Not so, the Sūtra decides. For there is a special statement, i.e. the
text says that when the soul has become rice or grain or the like, the
passing out of that stage is beset with difficulties. From this we infer
that as there is no such statement concerning the earlier stages, the
soul stays at each of them for a short time only.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the not very long time.'




24. Into (plants) animated by other souls, because the statement is as
in the previous cases.

The text declares that 'he descending souls are born as rice, corn,'
&c., 'they are born here as rice, corn, herbs, trees,' &c. The question
here is whether the souls cling to plants animated by other souls which
have those plants for their bodies; or whether the descending souls
themselves are born with those plants for their bodies.--The latter view
is the right one; for the text says, 'they are born as rice, grain,' and
so on, and this expression is of the same kind as when we say 'he is
born as a man, as a deva,' and so on. The text therefore means that the
souls are embodied in the different plants.--This view the Sūtra
rejects. The souls merely cling to those plants which constitute the
bodies of other souls; 'since the statement is as in the previous
cases,' i.e. because the text only says that the souls become plants as
it had previously been said that they become ether, and so on. Where the
text means to say that the soul enters on the condition of an enjoying
soul (i.e. of a soul assuming a new body for the purpose of retributive
enjoyment), it refers to the deeds which lead to such enjoyment; so e.
g. in the passage, 'Those whose works have been good obtain a good
birth,' & c. But in the text under discussion there is no such reference
to karman. For those works--viz. sacrifices and the like--which were
undertaken with a view to reward, such as enjoyment of the heavenly
world, are, in the case of the descending souls, completely wiped out by
the enjoyment of the heavenly world (which precedes the descent of the
souls); and those works on the other hand, the action of which has not
yet begun, lead to the embodiments mentioned further on ('Those whose
works are good'). And in the interval between those two conditions no
new karman originates. When, therefore, the text says that the souls are
born as plants, the statement cannot be taken in its literal sense.




25. It is unholy. Not so, on the ground of Scripture.

The conclusion arrived at above cannot be accepted, since there is a
reason why the descending soul should enter on the condition of an
enjoying soul. Such works as sacrifices, the fruit of which is the
enjoyment of the heavenly world, are mixed with evil, for they imply
injury to living beings as in the case of the goat offered to Agnīshomau.
And such injury is evil as it is forbidden by texts such as 'let him not
harm any creature.' Nor can it be said that the injunctions of
sacrificing animals constitute exceptions to the general rule of not
harming any creature.--For the two injunctions refer to different things.
The injunction to kill the goat for Agnīshomau intimates that the
killing of the animal subserves the accomplishment of the sacrifice,
while the injunction not to 'harm' teaches that such harming has
disastrous consequences. Should it be said that the prohibition of
harming does not refer to such actions as the sacrifice of the goat
which proceed on the basis of scriptural injunction, but only to such
actions as spring from natural passion or desire (rāga); we remark that
in the case of sacrifices also the action is equally prompted by natural
desire. Injunctions such as 'He who desires the heavenly world is to
sacrifice', teach that sacrifices are to be undertaken by persons
desirous of certain pleasant results, and such persons having thus
learned by what means the result is to be accomplished proceed to action
from the natural desire of the result. This applies to the killing of
the goat also which is offered to Agnīshomau; man learns from Scripture
that such actions help to accomplish the sacrifice which effects the
result, and then performs those actions from natural desire. The case in
no way differs from that of harm done in ordinary life--where the agent
always is prompted by natural desire, having somehow arrived at the
conclusion that his action will accomplish something aimed at by himself.
The same holds good with regard to works of permanent obligation. Men
learn from Scripture that through the performance of the special duties
of their caste they attain happiness of the highest kind, and then apply
themselves to their duties from a natural desire of such happiness, and
therefore such works also are mixed with evil. Hence the souls of those
who have performed sacrifices, and so on, which contain an element of
evil, at first experience in the heavenly world that result which is to
be enjoyed there, and then embodying themselves in non-moving things
such as plants, experience the fruit of that part of their actions which
is of a harmful nature. That embodiment in non-moving beings is the
result of evil deeds Smriti declares: 'Owing to those defects of work
which are due to the body, a man becomes a non-moving being.' From all
this it follows that the souls embody themselves in plants to the end of
enjoying the fruits of their works.--To this the Sūtra replies--it is
not so, on account of scriptural statement. For Scripture declares that
the killing of sacrificial animals makes them to go up to the heavenly
world, and therefore is not of the nature of harm. This is declared in
the text, 'The animal killed at the sacrifice having assumed a divine
body goes to the heavenly world'; 'with a golden body it ascends to the
heavenly world.' An action which is the means of supreme exaltation is
not of the nature of harm, even if it involves some little pain; it
rather is of beneficial nature.--With this the mantra also agrees: 'Thou
dost not die, thou goest to the gods on easy paths; where virtuous men
go, not evil-doers, there the divine Savitri may lead thee.' An act
which has a healing tendency, although it may cause a transitory pain,
men of insight declare to be preservative and beneficial.




26. After that conjunction with him who performs the act of generation.

The declaration that the descending souls _become_ rice plants, and so
on, cannot be taken literally for that reason also, that the text
afterwards declares them to _become_ those who perform the act of
generation: 'Whoever the being may be that eats the food and begets
offspring, that being he (i.e. the soul that has descended) becomes.'
Now the meaning of this latter text can only be that the soul enters
into conjunction with the creature which eats the grain; and hence we
have to interpret the previous text, as to the soul's becoming a plant,
in the same way.




27. From the yoni the body.

Only after having reached a yoni the soul, affected with a remnant of
its works, obtains a new body, and only in a body there can be the
enjoyment of pleasure and pain. When, therefore, previous to that the
soul is said to reach ether, wind, and so on, this can only mean that it
enters into conjunction with them.--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'that animated by another soul.'




SECOND PĀDA.

1. In the intermediate sphere the creation (is effected by the soul);
for (Scripture) says (so).

So far it has been shown that the soul in the waking state suffers
affliction since, in accordance with its deeds, it goes, returns, is
born, and so on. Next an enquiry is instituted into its condition in the
state of dream. With reference to the state of dreaming Scripture says,
'There are no chariots in that state, no horses, no roads; then he
creates chariots, horses and roads. There are no blessings, no happiness,
no joys; then he himself creates blessings, happiness, joys, and so on.
For he is the creator' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 10). A doubt here arises whether
this creation of chariots and the rest is accomplished by the individual
soul, or by the Lord.--'The creation in the intermediate state' is due
to the individual soul only. 'The intermediate state' means the sphere
of dreams, in agreement with the passage 'There is a third intermediate
state, the place of dreams' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 1). And that creation is
effected by the soul only; for what is referred to in the passages 'he
creates,' 'For he is the maker,' is none other but the dreaming soul.




2. And some (state the soul to be) the shaper; and sons, and so on.

And the followers of one sākhā state in their text that the dreaming
soul is the shaper of its desires: 'He, the person who is awake in those
who sleep, shaping one desired thing (kāma) after the other.' The term
'kāma' there denotes not mere desires, but such things as sons and the
like which are objects of desire. For sons and so on are introduced as
'kāmas' in previous passages: 'Ask for all kāmas according to thy wish';
'Choose sons and grandsons living a hundred years' (Ka. Up. I, 1, 25;
23). The individual soul thus creates chariots, and so on, in its dreams.
That the soul has the power of realising all its wishes is known from
the declaration of Prajāpati. It is therefore able to create, even in
the absence of special instruments.--This view is set aside by the next
Sūtra.




3. But it is mere Māyā; on account of the true nature (of the soul) not
being fully manifested.

The things appearing in dreams-chariots, lotus tanks, and so on--are
absolute Māyā, i.e. things created by the Supreme Person. For the term
'Māyā' denotes wonderful things, as appears from passages such as 'She
was born in the race of Janaka, appearing like the wonderful power of
the divine being in bodily shape' (devamāyā). The sense of the passage
'there are no chariots,' &c. then is--there are no chariots and horses
to be perceived by any other person but the dreaming one; and then 'he
creates chariots,' &c.--i. e. the Supreme Person creates things to be
perceived by the dreamer and persisting for a certain time only. Those
things therefore are of a wonderful nature (but not illusions). And the
creation of such wonderful things is possible for the Supreme Person who
can immediately realise all his wishes; but not for the individual soul.
The latter also, indeed, fundamentally possesses that power; but as in
the Samsāra state the true nature of the soul is not fully manifested,
it is then incapable of accomplishing such wonderful creations. The text
'the person shaping one desired thing after the other' declares the
Supreme Person to be the creator, for the clauses immediately preceding
and following that text (viz. 'He who is awake in those who sleep'; and
'that is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal;
all worlds are contained in it and no one goes beyond'--Ka. Up. II, 5,
8) mention attributes distinctively characteristic of the Supreme Person.
And the Bri. Up. text, 'For he is the maker,' must therefore, in
agreement with the Katha-text, also be understood as declaring that it
is the Supreme Person only that creates the things seen in a dream.--But
if it is the true nature of the soul to be free from all imperfections,
and so on, why then does this not manifest itself?--To this the next
Sūtra replies.




4. But owing to the wish of the highest it is hidden; for from that are
its bondage and the opposite state.

The _but_ sets the objection aside. Owing to the wish of the highest, i.
e. the Supreme Person, the essential nature of the individual soul is
hidden. The Supreme Person hides the true, essentially blessed, nature
of the soul which is in a state of sin owing to the endless chain of
karman. For this reason we find it stated in Scripture that the bondage
and release of the soul result from the wish of the Supreme Person only
'when he finds freedom from fear and rest in that invisible, incorporeal,
undefined, unsupported; then he has gone to fearlessness '; 'for he
alone causes blessedness'; 'from fear of it the wind blows' (Taitt. Up.
II, 7, 8).




5. Or that (results) also from connexion with the body.

The obscuration of the soul's true nature results either from the soul's
connexion with the body or from its connexion with the power of matter
in a subtle state. As long as the creation lasts, the soul is obscured
by its connexion with matter in the form of a body; at the time of a
pralaya, on the other hand, by its connexion with matter of so
exceedingly subtle a kind as not to admit of differentiation by means of
name and form. As thus its true nature is not manifest, the soul is
unable to create, in dreams, chariots, lotus tanks, and so on, by its
mere wish. And what the texts say about a being that is awake in those
who sleep and is the abode of all worlds ('in that all the worlds abide,
and no one goes beyond it'--Ka. Up. II, 4, 9) can apply to the Supreme
Person only. The things seen by an individual soul in its dreams
therefore are specially created by the Supreme Person, and are meant by
him to be a retribution--whether reward or punishment--for deeds of
minor importance: they therefore last for the time of the dream only,
and are perceived by that one soul only.




6. And it is suggestive, according to Scripture; this the experts also
declare.

The things seen in dreams are not created by the wish of the individual
soul for this reason also, that according to Scripture dreams are
prophetic of future good or ill fortune. 'When a man engaged in some
work undertaken for some special wish sees a woman in his dream, he may
infer success from his dream vision.' Those also who understand the
science of dreams teach that dreams foreshadow good and evil fortune.
But that which depends on one's own wish can have no prophetic quality;
and as ill fortune is not desired the dreamer would create for himself
only such visions as would indicate good fortune. Hence the creation
which takes place in dreams can be the Lord's work only.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the intermediate state.'




7. The absence of that takes place in the nādīs and in the Self,
according to scriptural statement.

Next the state of deep dreamless sleep is enquired into. Scripture says,
'When a man is asleep, reposing and at perfect rest, so that he sees no
dream, then he lies asleep in those nādīs' (Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 3); 'When
he is in profound sleep and is conscious of nothing, there are seventy-
two thousand veins called hita which from the heart spread through the
pericardium. Through them he moves forth and rests in the pericardium'
(Bri. Up. II, 1, 19). 'When a man sleeps here, he becomes united with
the True' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1). These texts declare the veins, the
pericardium, and Brahman to be the place of deep sleep; and hence there
is a doubt whether each of them in turns, or all of them together, are
that place. There is an option between them, since they are not in
mutual dependence, and since the sleeping soul cannot at the same time
be in several places!--To this the Sūtra replies--the absence of dreams,
i.e. deep sleep takes place in the veins, in the pericardium, and in the
highest Self together; since these three are declared by Scripture. When
different alternatives may be combined, on the ground of there being
different effects in each case, it is improper to assume an option which
implies sublation of some of the alternatives. And in the present case
such combination is possible, the veins and the pericardium holding the
position of a mansion, as it were, and a couch within the mansion, while
Brahman is the pillow, as it were. Thus Brahman alone is the immediate
resting-place of the sleeping soul.




8. Hence the awaking from that.

Since Brahman alone directly is the place of deep sleep, Scripture is
able to declare that the souls awake from that, i.e. Brahman; compare
'Having come back from the True they do not know that they come from the
True' (Ch. Up. VI, 10, 2), and other texts.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the absence of that.'




9. But the same, on account of work, remembrance, text, and injunction.

Does the same person who had gone to sleep rise again at the time of
waking, or a different one?--Since the soul in deep sleep frees itself
from all limiting adjuncts, unites itself with Brahman, and thus being
in no way different from the released soul, is no longer in any way
connected with its previous body, organs, and so on; the person rising
from sleep is a different one.--This view the Sūtra sets aside, saying
'but the same.' For there remains the work, i.e. the good and evil deeds
previously done by the sleeper, for which the same person has to undergo
retribution before the knowledge of truth arises. There is next
remembrance--'I, the waking person, am the same as I who was asleep.'
Scripture also declares this: 'Whatever these creatures are here,
whether a lion, or tiger, or wolf, &c., that they become again' (Ch. Up.
VI, 10, 2). And, lastly, the injunctions which enjoin certain acts for
the sake of final Release would be purportless if the person merged in
deep sleep attained Release. Nor can it be said that the sleeping soul
is free from all limiting adjuncts and manifests itself in its true
nature (so as not to be different from the released soul). For with
regard to the sleeping person the text says,'In truth he thus does not
know himself that he is I, nor does he know anything that exists. He is
gone to utter annihilation. I see no good in this' (Ch. Up. VIII, ii, 1);
while, on the other hand, the texts, 'Having approached the highest
light he manifests himself in his true nature; he moves about there
laughing, playing, delighting himself; 'He becomes a Self-ruler; he
moves about in all the worlds according to his wish'; 'The seeing one
sees everything, and attains everything everywhere' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3;
VII, 25, 2; 26, 2), declare that the released soul is all-knowing, and
so on. What is true about the sleeping person is that he is still
comprised within the Samsāra, but for the time having put off all
instruments of knowledge and action and become incapable of knowledge
and enjoyment repairs to the place of utter rest, i.e. the highest Self,
and having there refreshed himself, again rises to new enjoyment of
action.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'work, remembrance, text, and
injunction.'




10. In the swooning person there is half-combination; this being the
remaining (hypothesis).

With regard to a person lying in a swoon or stunned, the question arises
whether that state of swoon is one of the other states, viz. deep sleep
and so on, or whether it is a special condition of its own.--The former
alternative must be accepted. For the term 'swoon' may be explained as
denoting either deep sleep or some other acknowledged state, and there
is no authority for assuming an altogether different new state.--This
view the Sūtra sets aside. The condition of a swooning person consists
in reaching half, viz. of what leads to death; for this is the only
hypothesis remaining. A swoon cannot be either dreaming or being awake;
for in a swoon there is no consciousness. And as it is different in
character as well as in the occasions giving rise to it from deep sleep
and death, it cannot be either of those two states; for there are
special circumstances occasioning a swoon, such as a blow on the head.
The only possible alternative then is to view a swoon as a state in
which there is made a half-way approach to death. For while death
consists in the complete cessation of the soul's connexion with the body
or organs of any kind, a swoon consists in the soul's remaining
connected with the subtle body and organs only. Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the swooning person.'




11. Not on account of place even (is there any imperfection) of the
Highest; for everywhere (it is described) as having twofold
characteristics.

The different states of the individual soul have been discussed, to the
end that an insight into their imperfections may give rise to
indifference towards all worldly enjoyments. Next now, in order to give
rise to the desire of attaining to Brahman, the Sūtras proceed to
expound how Brahman's nature is raised above all imperfections and
constituted by mere blessed qualities. The following point requires to
be considered first. Do those imperfections which cling to the
individual soul in consequence of its different states--viz. the waking
state, dreams, deep sleep, swoon, departure from the body--affect also
the highest Brahman which as its inner Ruler abides within the soul in
those different states, or not?--They do affect it, since Brahman abides
within the bodies which are in those different states.--But Sūtras such
as I, 2, 8 have already declared that the highest Brahman, because not
subject to the influence of karman, is free from all imperfections; how
then can imperfections cling to it for the reason that it is connected
with this or that place?--In the following way. As was shown under III,
2, 6, works give rise to imperfection and suffering in so far as they
cause the connexion of the soul with a body. The efficient cause therein
is the imperfection inherent in the connexion with a body; for otherwise
the works themselves would directly give rise to pain, and what then
would be the use of the connexion with a body? Hence, even in the case
of a being not subject to karman, its connexion with various unholy
bodies will cause imperfection and suffering. And even when such a being
voluntarily enters into such bodies in order to rule them, connexion
with imperfections is unavoidable; no less than to be immersed in blood
and purulent matter, even if done voluntarily, will make a man unclean.
Although therefore Brahman is the sole cause of the world and a treasure-
house of all blessed qualities, yet it is affected by the imperfections
springing therefrom that, as declared by Scripture, it abides within
matter, bodies, and their parts, and thus is connected with them (cp.
'he who abides within earth, within the soul, within the eye, within the
seed,' &c., Bri. Up. III, 7, 3).

Of this primā facie view the Sūtra disposes by saying--'Not even from
place, such as earth, soul, &c., is there possible for the highest Self
a shadow even of imperfection; since everywhere in Scripture as well as
Smriti Brahman is described as having characteristics of a double kind;
viz. on the one hand freedom from all imperfections, and on the other
possession of all blessed qualities. For Scripture says that the Supreme
Person is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from
grief, free from hunger and thirst; that all his wishes realise
themselves, that all its purposes realise themselves' (Ch. Up. VIII, 1,
5)--And Smriti says, 'He comprises within himself all blessed qualities,
by a particle of his power the whole mass of beings is supported. In him
there are combined energy, strength, might, wisdom, valour, and all
other noble qualities. He is the Highest of the high, no pain or other
imperfections affect him, the Lord of all, high or low. From all evil he
is free, he whose name is Vishnu, the highest abode.' These and other
passages teach that Brahman possesses the double characteristics stated
above.




12. Should it be said 'on account of difference'; not so, because with
reference to each the text says what is not that.

But, an objection is raised, we observe, that the individual soul also,
although in reality possessing the same twofold attributes, viz. freedom
from all evil and so on, as we learn from the teaching of Prajāpati (Ch.
Up. VIII, 7), yet is affected with imperfections owing to the fact that
it is connected with bodies, divine, human, and so on, and thus
undergoes a variety of conditions. Analogously we cannot avoid the
conclusion that the inner Ruler also, although in reality possessing
those same twofold attributes, is also affected by imperfection, because
through its connexion with those different bodies it likewise undergoes
a variety of conditions.--This objection the Sūtra sets aside in the
words, 'not so, because with reference to each the text says what is not
that,' i.e. what is contrary. For where the text says that the inner
Ruler dwells within the earth, within the soul, within the eye, and so
on, it concludes each clause by saying, 'that is thy Self, the inner
Ruler, the immortal one,' i.e. declares the inner Ruler to be immortal,
and thus denies of him any imperfections due to his connexion with the
bodies which he voluntarily enters in order to rule them. The true
(perfect) nature of the individual soul, on the other hand, is obscured
as long as it is connected with a body, as we have explained under III,
2, 5.--But, as the Pūrvapakshin has pointed out, even if the highest
Self voluntarily enters into bodies, it cannot escape connexion with the
imperfections which depend on the essential nature of those bodies.--Not
so, we reply. The fact is, that not even non-sentient things are,
essentially or intrinsically, bad; but in accordance with the nature of
the works of those beings which are under the rule of karman, one thing,
owing to the will of the Supreme Person, causes pain to one man at one
time and pleasure at another time, and causes pleasure or pain to one
person and the opposite to another person. If the effects of things
depended on their own nature only, everything would at all times be
productive for all persons, either of pleasure only or of pain only. But
this is not observed to be the case. In agreement herewith Smriti says,
'Because one and the same thing causes pain and pleasure and envy and
wrath, the nature of a thing cannot lie in itself. As the same thing
which erst gave rise to love causes pain later on, and that which once
caused anger now causes satisfaction, nothing is in itself of the nature
either of pleasure or of pain.' To the soul therefore which is subject
to karman the connexion with different things is the source of
imperfection and suffering, in agreement with the nature of its works;
while to the highest Brahman, which is subject to itself only, the same
connexion is the source of playful sport, consisting therein that he in
various ways guides and rules those things.




13. Some also (teach) thus.

Moreover, the followers of one sākhā explicitly teach that the connexion
with one and the same body is for the individual soul a source of
disadvantage, while for the highest Brahman it is nothing of the kind,
but constitutes an accession of glory in so far as it manifests him as a
Lord and Ruler, 'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree.
One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating' (Mu.
Up. III, 1, 1).--But the text, 'Having entered by means of that jīva-
self I will differentiate names and forms,' teaches that the
differentiation of names and forms depends on the entering into the
elements of the jīva-soul whose Self is Brahman, and this implies that
Brahman also, as the Self of the individual soul, possesses definite
shapes, divine, human, and so on, and is to be denominated by the
corresponding names. Brahman thus falls within the sphere of beings to
which injunctions and prohibitions are addressed--such as 'a Brāhmana is
to sacrifice'--and hence necessarily is under the power of karman.--To
this the next Sūtra replies.




14. For (Brahman is) without form merely, since it is the principal
agent with regard to that.

Brahman, although by entering into bodies, human, divine, and so on, it
becomes connected with various forms, yet is in itself altogether devoid
of form, and therefore does not share that subjection to karman which in
the case of the soul is due to its embodiedness.--Why?--Because as it is
that which brings about names and forms it stands to them in the
relation of a superior (pradhāna). For the text, 'The Ether (Brahman)
indeed is the accomplisher of names and forms; that which is without
these two is Brahman,' teaches that Brahman, although entering into all
beings, is not touched by name and form, but is that which brings about
name and form.--But, an objection is raised, if Brahman is the inner
ruler of beings in so far as he has them for its body, how can it be
said that it is altogether destitute of form?--There is a difference, we
reply. The individual soul is connected with the shape of the body in
which it dwells because it participates in the pleasures and pains to
which the body gives rise; but as Brahman does not share those pleasures
and pains, it has no shape or form. And the scriptural injunctions and
prohibitions apply to those only who are under the power of karman. The
highest Brahman therefore is like a being without form, and hence,
although abiding within all things, free from all imperfection and
endowed with all blessed qualities.

But, an objection is raised, texts such as 'the True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman' suggest a Brahman whose nature is constituted
exclusively by non-differentiated light; while at the same time a
Brahman endowed with qualities--such as omniscience, being the cause of
the world, being the inner Self of all, having the power of immediately
realising its wishes and purposes--is expressly negatived by texts such
as 'not so, not so' (Bri. Up. II, 3, 6), and therefore must be held to
be false. How then can it be maintained that Brahman possesses the
'twofold characteristics' mentioned under Sūtra 11?--To this the next
Sūtra replies.




15. And in the same way as (a Brahman) consisting of light; (the texts
thus) not being devoid of meaning.

In order that texts such as 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'
may not be devoid of meaning, we have to admit that light (intelligence)
constitutes the essential nature of Brahman. But analogously we have
also to admit that Brahman possesses the 'twofold characteristics'; for
otherwise the texts declaring it to be free from all imperfections, all-
knowing, the cause of the world, and so on, would in their turn be
devoid of meaning.




16. And (the text) says so much only.

Moreover the text 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' only
teaches that Brahman has light for its essential nature, and does not
negative those other attributes of Brahman--omniscience, being the cause
of the world, &c.--which are intimated by other texts. What is the
object of the negation in 'not so, not so' will be shown further on.




17. (This Scripture) also shows, and it is also stated in Smriti.

That Brahman is a treasure as it were of all blessed qualities and free
from all imperfections, the whole body of Vedānta-texts clearly declares:
'That highest great lord of lords, that highest deity of deities'; 'He
is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs, and there is of him
neither parent nor lord '; 'There is no effect and no cause known of him,
no one is seen like unto him or higher. His high power is revealed as
manifold, as essential action of knowledge and strength' (Svet. Up. VI,
7-9); 'He who is all-knowing, whose brooding consists of knowledge' (Mu.
I, 1,9); 'From fear of him the wind blows, from fear of him the sun
moves'; 'That is one bliss of Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 8); 'That from
which all speech with the mind turns away, not having reached it,
knowing the bliss of that Brahman man fears nothing' (Taitt. Up. II, 9);
'He who is without parts, without action, tranquil, without fault,
without taint' (Svet. Up. VI, 19).--And Smriti: 'He who knows me to be
unborn and without a beginning, the Supreme Lord of the worlds';
'Pervading this entire universe, by one part of mine I do abide'; 'With
me as supervisor Prakriti brings forth the universe of the movable and
the immovable, and for this reason the world does ever move round'; 'But
another is the Supreme Person, who is called the Supreme Spirit, who
pervading the three worlds supports them--the eternal Lord' (Bha. Gī. X,
3; 42; IX, 10; XV, 17); 'The all-working, all-powerful one, rich in
knowledge and strength, who becomes neither less nor more, who is self-
dependent, without beginning, master of all; who knows neither weariness
nor exhaustion, nor fear, wrath and desire; the blameless one, raised
above all, without support, imperishable.'--As thus Brahman in whatever
place it may abide has the 'twofold characteristics,' the imperfections
dependent on those places do not touch it.




18. For this very reason comparisons, such as reflected images of the
sun and the like.

Because Brahman, although abiding in manifold places, ever possesses the
twofold characteristics, and hence does not share the imperfections due
to those places, scriptural texts illustrate its purity in the midst of
inferior surroundings by comparing it to the sun reflected in water,
mirrors, and the like. Compare e.g., 'As the one ether is rendered
manifold by jars and the like, or as the one sun becomes manifold in
several sheets of water; thus the one Self is rendered manifold by
abiding in many places. For the Self of all beings, although one, abides
in each separate being and is thus seen as one and many at the same time,
as the moon reflected in water.'




19. But because it is not apprehended like water, there is no equality.

The 'but' indicates an objection.--The highest Self is not apprehended
in earth and other places in the same way as the sun or a face is
apprehended in water or a mirror. For the sun and a face are erroneously
apprehended as abiding in water or a mirror; they do not really abide
there. When, on the other hand, Scripture tells us that the highest Self
dwells in the earth, in water, in the soul, &c., we apprehend it as
really dwelling in all those places. That the imperfections caused by
water and mirrors do not attach themselves to the sun or a face is due
to the fact that the sun and the face do not really abide in the water
and the mirror. Hence there is no real parallelism between the thing
compared (the highest Self) and the thing to which it is compared (the
reflected image).




20. The participation (on Brahman's part) in increase and decrease, due
to its abiding within (is denied); on account of the appropriateness of
both (comparisons), and because thus it is seen.

The comparison of the highest Self to the reflected sun and the rest is
meant only to deny of the Self that it participates in the imperfections--
such as increase, decrease, and the like--which attach to the earth and
the other beings within which the Self abides.--How do we know this?--
From the circumstance that on this supposition both comparisons are
appropriate. In the scriptural text quoted above Brahman is compared to
ether, which although one becomes manifold through the things--jars and
so on--within it; and to the sun, which is multiplied by the sheets of
water in which he is reflected. Now the employment of these comparisons--
with ether which really does abide within the jars and so on, and with
the sun which in reality does not abide in the water--is appropriate
only if they are meant to convey the idea that the highest Self does not
participate in the imperfections inherent in earth and so on. Just as
ether, although connecting itself separately with jars, pots, and so on,
which undergo increase and decrease, is not itself touched by these
imperfections; and just as the sun, although seen in sheets of water of
unequal extent, is not touched by their increase and decrease; thus the
highest Self, although abiding within variously-shaped beings, whether
non-sentient like earth or sentient, remains untouched by their various
imperfections--increase, decrease, and so on--remains one although
abiding in all of them, and ever keeps the treasure of its blessed
qualities unsullied by an atom even of impurity.--The comparison of
Brahman with the reflected sun holds good on the following account. As
the sun is not touched by the imperfections belonging to the water,
since he does not really abide in the water and hence there is no reason
for his sharing those imperfections, thus the highest Self, which really
abides within earth and the rest, is not affected by their imperfections;
for as the nature of the highest Self is essentially antagonistic to all
imperfection, there is no reason for its participating in the
imperfection of others.--'And as this is seen.' This means--Since we
observe in ordinary life also that comparisons are instituted between
two things for the reason that although they do not possess all
attributes in common, they yet have some attribute in common. We say, e.
g. 'this man is like a lion.'--The conclusion from all this is that the
highest Self, which is essentially free from all imperfections and a
treasure as it were of all blessed qualities, in no way suffers from
dwelling within the earth and the rest.

An objection is raised. In the Brihad-āranyaka, in the chapter beginning
'There are two forms of Brahman, the material and the immaterial,' the
whole material world, gross and subtle, is at first referred to as
constituting the form of Brahman, and next a special form of Brahman is
mentioned: 'And what is the form of that Person? Like a saffron-coloured
raiment,' &c. But thereupon the text proceeds, 'Now follows the teaching--
not so, not so; for there is not anything else higher than this "not so.
" 'This passage, referring to all the previously mentioned forms of
Brahman by means of the word 'so,' negatives them; intimating thereby
that Brahman is nothing else than pure Being, and that all distinctions
are mere imaginations due to Brahman not knowing its own essential
nature. How then can Brahman possess the twofold characteristics?--To
this the next Sūtra replies.




21. For the text denies the previously declared so-muchness; and
declares more than that.

It is impossible to understand the text 'not so, not so' as negativing
those distinctions of Brahman which had been stated previously. If the
text meant that, it would be mere idle talk. For none but a person not
in his right mind would first teach that all the things mentioned in the
earlier part of the section are distinctive attributes of Brahman--as
which they are not known by any other means of proof--and thereupon
deliberately negative his own teaching. Although among the things
mentioned there are some which, in themselves, are known through other
means of proof, yet they are not thus known to be modes of Brahman, and
others again are known neither in themselves nor as modes of Brahman.
The text therefore cannot merely refer to them as things otherwise known,
but gives fundamental instruction about them. Hence the later passage
cannot be meant as a sheer negation, but must be taken as denying the
previously described 'so-muchness' of Brahman; i.e. the passage denies
that limited nature of Brahman which would result from Brahman being
viewed as distinguished by the previously stated attributes only. The
word _so_ refers to that limited nature, and the phrase _not so_
therefore means that Brahman is not distinguished by the previously
stated modes _only_. This interpretation is further confirmed by the
fact that after that negative phrase further qualities of Brahman are
declared by the text: 'For there is not anything higher than this _not
so_. Then comes the name, the _True of the True_; for the prānas are the
True, and he is the True of them.' That means: Than that Brahman which
is expressed by the phrase 'not so' there is no other thing higher, i.e.
there is nothing more exalted than Brahman either in essential nature or
in qualities. And of that Brahman the name is the 'True of the True.'
This name is explained in the next clause, 'for the prānas,' &c. The
term prānas here denotes the individual souls, so called because the
prānas accompany them. They are the 'True' because they do not, like the
elements, undergo changes implying an alteration of their essential
nature. And the highest Self is the 'True of the True' because while the
souls undergo, in accordance with their karman, contractions and
expansions of intelligence, the highest Self which is free from all sin
knows of no such alternations. He is therefore more eminently _true_
than they are. As thus the complementary passage declares Brahman to be
connected with certain qualities, the clause 'not so, not so' (to which
that passage is complementary) cannot deny that Brahman possesses
distinctive attributes, but only that Brahman's nature is confined to
the attributes previously stated.--Brahman therefore possesses the
twofold characteristics. That the clause 'not so' negatives Brahman's
being fully described by the attributes previously mentioned, was above
proved on the ground that since Brahman is not the object of any other
means of proof, those previous statements cannot refer to what is
already proved, and that the final clause cannot therefore be meant to
deny what the previous clauses expressly teach. The next Sūtra now
confirms this circumstance of Brahman not lying within the sphere of the
other means of proof.




22. That (is) unmanifested; for (this Scripture) declares.

Brahman is not manifested by other means of proof; for Scripture says,
'His form is not to be seen, no one beholds him with the eye' (Ka. Up.
II, 6, 9); 'He is not apprehended by the eye nor by speech' (Mu. Up. III,
1, 8).




23. Also in perfect conciliation, according to Scripture and Smriti.

Moreover, it is only in the state of perfect conciliation or endearment,
i.e. in meditation bearing the character of devotion, that an intuition
of Brahman takes place, not in any other state. This Scripture and
Smriti alike teach. 'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by
understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses by him the
Self can be gained. The Self chooses him as his own' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 23);
'When a man's nature has become purified by the serene light of
knowledge, then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts' (Mu. Up.
III, 1, 9). Smriti: 'Neither by the Vedas, nor austerities, nor gifts,
nor by sacrifice, but only by exclusive devotion, may I in this form be
known and beheld in truth and also entered into' (Bha. Gī. XI, 53,54).
The scriptural text beginning 'Two are the forms of Brahman,' which
declares the nature of Brahman for the purposes of devout meditation,
cannot therefore refer to Brahman's being characterised by two forms, a
material and an immaterial, as something already known; for apart from
Scripture nothing is known about Brahman.




24. And there is non-difference (of the intention of Brahman's
distinguishing attributes), as in the case of light; and the light (is)
intuited as constituting Brahman's essential nature by repetition of the
practice (of meditation).

That the clause 'not so' negatives not Brahman's possessing two forms, a
material and an immaterial one, but only Brahman's nature being
restricted to those determinations, follows therefrom also that in the
vision of Vāmadeva and others who had attained to intuition into
Brahman's nature, the fact of Brahman having all material and immaterial
beings for its attributes is apprehended in non-difference, i.e. in the
same way as the fact of light (i.e. knowledge) and bliss constituting
Brahman's essential nature. Compare the text 'Seeing this the Rishi
Vāmadeva understood, I am Manu and the sun' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10). And
that light and bliss constitute Brahman's nature was perceived by
Vāmadeva and the rest through repeated performance of the practice of
devout meditation. In the same way then, i.e. by repeated meditation,
they also became aware that Brahman has all material and immaterial
things for its distinguishing modes.--The next Sūtra sums up the proof
of Brahman's possessing twofold characteristics.




25. Hence (Brahman is distinguished) by what is infinite; for thus the
characteristics (hold good).

By the arguments stated it is proved that Brahman is distinguished by
the infinite multitude of blessed qualities. And this being so, it
follows that Brahman possesses the twofold characteristics.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'that which has twofold characteristics.'




26. But on account of twofold designation, as the snake and its coils.

It has been shown in the preceding adhikarana that the entire non-
sentient universe is the outward form of Brahman. For the purpose of
proving Brahman's freedom from all imperfection, an enquiry is now begun
into the particular mode in which the world may be conceived to
constitute the form of Brahman. Is the relation of the two like that of
the snake and its coils; or like that of light and the luminous body,
both of which fall under the same genus; or like that of the individual
soul and Brahman, the soul being a distinguishing attribute and for that
reason a part (amsa) of Brahman?--On the assumption of this last
alternative, which is about to be established here, it has been already
shown under two preceding Sūtras (I, 4, 23; II, 1, 14), that from
Brahman, as distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in their
subtle form, there originates Brahman as distinguished by all those
beings in their gross form.

Which then of the alternatives stated above is the true one?--The
material world is related to Brahman as the coils to the snake, 'on
account of twofold designation.' For some texts declare the identity of
the two: 'Brahman only is all this'; 'The Self only is all this.' Other
texts again refer to the difference of the two: 'Having entered into
these three deities with this jīva-self, let me differentiate names and
forms.' We therefore consider all non-sentient things to be special
forms or arrangements of Brahman, as the coils are of a coiled-up snake
or a coiled-up rope.




27. Or else like light and its abode, both being fire.

The _or_ sets aside the other two alternatives. If Brahman itself only
appeared in the form of non-sentient things--as the snake itself only
constitutes the coils--both sets of texts, those which declare
difference as well as those which declare the unchangeableness of
Brahman, would be contrary to sense. We therefore, adopting the second
alternative, hold that the case under discussion is analogous to that of
light and that in which it abides, i.e. the luminous body. The two are
different, but at the same time they are identical in so far as they
both are fire (tejas). In the same way the non-sentient world
constitutes the form of Brahman.




28. Or else in the manner stated above.

The _but_ sets aside the two preceding alternatives. One substance may
indeed connect itself with several states, but the former of the two
alternatives implies that Brahman itself constitutes the essential
nature of non-sentient matter, and thus there is no escape from the
objections already stated under Sūtra 27. Let then the second
alternative be adopted according to which Brahma-hood (brahmatva)
constitutes a genus inhering in Brahman as well as in non-sentient
matter, just as fire constitutes the common genus for light and luminous
bodies. But on this view Brahman becomes a mere abstract generic
character inhering in the Lord (isvara), sentient souls and non-sentient
matter, just as the generic character of horses (asvatva) inheres in
concrete individual horses; and this contradicts all the teaching of
Sruti and Smriti (according to which Brahman is the highest concrete
entity). We therefore hold that non-sentient matter stands to Brahman in
the same relation as the one previously proved for the individual soul
in Sūtra II, 3, 43; 46; viz. that it is an attribute incapable of being
realised apart from Brahman and hence is a part (amsa) of the latter.
The texts referring to the two as non-different may thus be taken in
their primary sense; for the part is only a limited place of that of
which it is a part. And the texts referring to the two as different may
also be taken in their primary sense; for the distinguishing attribute
and that to which the attribute belongs are essentially different. Thus
Brahman's freedom from all imperfection is preserved.--Lustre is an
attribute not to be realised apart from the gem, and therefore is a part
of the gem; the same relation also holds good between generic character
and individuals having that character, between qualities and things
having qualities, between bodies and souls. In the same way souls as
well as non-sentient matter stand to Brahman in the relation of parts.




29. And on account of denial.

Texts such as 'This is that great unborn Self, undecaying, undying' (Bri.
Up. IV, 4, 25), 'By the old age of the body that does not age' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5), deny of Brahman the properties of non-sentient matter. From
this it follows that the relation of the two can only be that of
distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished, and hence of part and
whole. Brahman distinguished by sentient and non-sentient beings in
their subtle state is the cause; distinguished by the same beings in
their gross state is the effect: the effect thus is non-different from
the cause, and by the knowledge of the causal Brahman the effect is
likewise known. All these tenets are in full mutual agreement. Brahman's
freedom from defects also is preserved; and this and Brahman's being the
abode of all blessed qualities prove that Brahman possesses the 'twofold
characteristics.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the coils of the
snake.'




30. (There is something) higher than that; on account of the
designations of bridge, measure, connexion, and difference.

The Sūtras now proceed to refute an erroneous view based on some
fallacious arguments, viz. that there is a being higher even than the
highest Brahman, the supreme cause, material as well as operative, of
the entire world--a refutation which will confirm the view of Brahman
being free from all imperfections and a treasure as it were of countless
transcendentally exalted qualities.--There is some entity higher than
the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world and
possessing the twofold characteristics. For the text 'That Self is a
bank (or bridge), a boundary' (Ch. Up. VIII, 4, 1) designates the Self
as a bank or bridge (setu). And the term 'setu' means in ordinary
language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river; and
from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant
something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be
crossed: 'He who has crossed that bridge, if blind,' &c.; this also
indicates that there must be something to be reached by crossing. Other
texts, again, speak of the highest Brahman as something measured, i.e.
limited. 'Brahman has four feet (quarters), sixteen parts.' Such
declarations of Brahman being something limited suggest the existence of
something unlimited to be reached by that bridge. Further there are
texts which declare a connexion of the bridge as that which is a means
towards reaching, and a thing connected with the bridge as that to be
reached: 'the highest bridge of the Immortal' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'he is
the bridge of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). For this reason also
there is something higher than the Highest.--And other texts again
expressly state that being beyond the Highest to be something different:
'he goes to the divine Person who is higher than the Highest' (Mu. Up.
III, 2, 8); 'by this Person this whole universe is filled; what is
higher than that is without form and without suffering' (Svet. Up. III,
9-10). All this combined shows that there is something higher than the
highest Brahman.--The next Sūtra disposes of this view.




31. But on account of resemblance.

The 'but' sets aside the pūrvapaksha. There is no truth in the assertion
that from the designation of the Highest as a bridge (or bank) it
follows that there is something beyond the Highest. For Brahman in that
text is not called a bank with regard to something to be reached thereby;
since the additional clause 'for the non-confounding of these worlds'
declares that it is compared to a bridge or bank in so far as it binds
to itself (setu being derived from _si_, to bind) the whole aggregate of
sentient and non-sentient things without any confusion. And in the
clause 'having passed beyond that bridge' the _passing beyond_ means
_reaching_; as we say, 'he passes beyond the Vedanta,' meaning 'he has
fully mastered it.'




32. It subserves the purpose of thought; as in the case of the feet.

Where the texts speak of Brahman as having four quarters, and sixteen
parts, or say that 'one quarter of him are all these beings' (Ch. Up.
III, 12, 6), they do so for the purpose of thought, i.e. meditation,
only. For as texts such as 'the Truth, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'
teach Brahman, the cause of the world, to be unlimited, it cannot in
itself be subject to measure. The texts referring to measure therefore
aim at meditation only, in the same way as texts such as 'Speech is one
foot (quarter) of him, breath another, the eye another, the mind
another' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 2).--But how can something that in itself is
beyond all measure, for the purpose of meditation, be spoken of as
measured? To this the next Sūtra replies.




33. Owing to difference of place, as in the case of light, and so on.

Owing to the difference of limiting adjuncts constituted by special
places, such as speech, and so on, Brahman in so far as connected with
these adjuncts may be viewed as having measure; just as light and the
like although spread everywhere may be viewed as limited, owing to its
connexion with different places--windows, jars, and so on.




34. And on account of possibility.

Nor is there any truth in the assertion that, because texts such as 'he
is the bridge of the Immortal' intimate a distinction between that which
causes to reach and the object reached, there must be something to be
reached different from that which causes to reach; for the highest Self
may be viewed as being itself a means towards itself being reached; cp.
'The Self cannot be reached by the Veda, and so on; he whom the Self
chooses by him the Self can be gained' (Ch. Up. I, 2, 23).




35. Thus, from the denial of anything else.

Nor can we allow the assertion that there is something higher than the
highest because certain texts ('the Person which is higher than the
highest'; 'beyond the Imperishable there is the highest,' &c.) refer to
such a difference. For the same texts expressly deny that there is
anything else higher than the highest--'than whom there is nothing else
higher, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger' (Svet. Up. III, 9).
So also other texts: 'For there is nothing else higher than this "not
so"' (i.e. than this Brahman designated by the phrase 'not so'; Bri. Up.
II, 3, 6); 'Of him none is the Lord, his name is great glory' (Mahānār.
Up. I, 10).

But what then is the entity referred to in the text 'tato yad
uttarataram '? (Svet. Up. III, 10)?--The passage immediately preceding
(8), 'I know that great person, &c.; a man who knows him passes over
death,' had declared that the knowledge of Brahman is the only way to
immortality; and the clause (9), 'Higher than whom there is nothing else,'
had confirmed this by declaring that Brahman is the Highest and that
there is no other thing higher. In agreement herewith we must explain
stanza 10 as giving a reason for what had been said, 'Because that which
is the highest (uttarataram), viz. the Supreme Person is without form
and without suffering, therefore (tatah) those who know him become
immortal,' &c. On any other explanation stanza 10 would not be in
harmony with stanza 8 where the subject is introduced, and with what is
declared in stanza 9.--Analogously in the text 'He goes to the divine
Person who is higher than the highest' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8) 'the highest'
means the aggregate soul (samashā-purusha), which in a previous passage
had been said to be 'higher than the high Imperishable' (II, 1, 2); and
the 'higher' refers to the Supreme Person, with all his transcendent
qualities, who is superior to the aggregate soul.




36. The omnipresence (possessed) by that, (understood) from the
declaration of extent.

That omnipresence which is possessed 'by that,' i.e. by Brahman, and
which is known 'from declarations of extent,' and so on, i.e. from texts
which declare Brahman to be all-pervading, is also known from texts such
as 'higher than that there is nothing.' Declarations of extent are e.g.
the following: 'By this Person this whole Universe is filled' (Svet. Up.
III. 9); 'whatever is seen or heard in this world, is pervaded inside
and outside by Nārāyana' (Mahānār. Up.); 'The eternal, pervading,
omnipresent, which the Wise consider as the source of all beings' (Mu.
Up. I, 1, 6). The 'and the rest' in the Sātra comprises passages such as
'Brahman indeed is all this,' 'The Self indeed is all this,' and the
like. The conclusion is that the highest Brahman is absolutely supreme.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Highest.'




37. From thence the reward; on account of possibility.

It has been shown, for the purpose of giving rise to a desire for devout
meditation, that the soul in all its states is imperfect, while the
Supreme Person to be reached by it is free from imperfections, the owner
of blessed qualities and higher than everything else. Being about to
investigate the nature of meditation, the Sūtrakāra now declares that
the meditating devotee receives the reward of meditation, i.e. Release,
which consists in attaining to the highest Person, from that highest
Person only: and that analogously the rewards for all works prescribed
by the Veda--whether to be enjoyed in this or the next world--come from
the highest Person only. The Sūtra therefore says generally, 'from
thence the reward.'--'Why so?'--'Because that only is possible.'

For it is he only--the all-knowing, all-powerful, supremely generous one--
who being pleased by sacrifices, gifts, offerings, and the like, as well
as by pious meditation, is in a position to bestow the different forms
of enjoyment in this and the heavenly world, and Release which consists
in attaining to a nature like his own. For action which is non-
intelligent and transitory is incapable of bringing about a result
connected with a future time.




38. And on account of scriptural declaration.

That he bestows all rewards--whether in the form of enjoyment or Release--
Scripture also declares 'This indeed is the great, the unborn Self, the
eater of food, the giver of wealth' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 24); and 'For he
alone causes delight' (Taitt. Up. II, 7).--Next a primā facie view is
stated.




39. For the same reasons Jaimini (thinks it to be) religious action.

For the same reasons, viz. possibility and scriptural declaration, the
teacher Jaimini thinks that religious works, viz. sacrifices, gifts,
offerings, and meditation, of themselves bring about their rewards. For
we observe that in ordinary life actions such as ploughing and the like,
and charitable gifts and so on, bring about their own reward, directly
or indirectly. And although Vedic works do not bring about their rewards
immediately, they may do so mediately, viz. by means of the so-called
_apūrva_. This follows also from the form of the Vedic injunctions, such
as 'He who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice.' As such
injunctions enjoin sacrifices as the means of bringing about the object
desired to be realised, viz. the heavenly world and the like, there is
no other way left than to assume that the result (which is seen not to
spring directly from the sacrifice) is accomplished by the mediation of
the apūrva.




40. But the former, Bādarāyana (thinks), on account of the designation
(of deities) as the cause.

The reverend Bādarāyana maintains the previously declared awarding of
rewards by the Supreme Person since the scriptural texts referring to
the different sacrifices declare that the deities only, Agni, Vāyu, and
so on, who are propitiated by the sacrifices--which are nothing else but
means to propitiate deities--are the cause of the rewards attached to
the sacrifices. Compare texts such as 'Let him who is desirous of
prosperity offer a white animal to Vāyu. For Vāyu is the swiftest god.
The man thus approaches Vāyu with his proper share, and Vāyu leads him
to prosperity.' And the whole instruction which the texts give, as to
the means by which men desirous of certain results are to effect those
results, is required on account of the injunctions only, and hence it
cannot be doubted that it has reference to the injunctions. The
apparatus of means to bring about the results thus being learnt from the
text only, no person acquainted with the force of the means of proof
will assent to that apparatus, as stated by the text, being set aside
and an apūrva about which the text says nothing being fancifully assumed.
And that the imperative verbal forms of the injunctions denote as the
thing to be effected by the effort of the sacrificer, only that which on
the basis of the usage of language and grammatical science is recognised
as the meaning of the root-element of such words as 'yajeta,' viz. the
sacrifice (yāga), which consists in the propitiation of a divine being,
and not some additional supersensuous thing such as the apūrva, we have
already proved above (p. 153 ff.). Texts such as 'Vāyu is the swiftest
god' teach that Vāyu and other deities are the bestowers of rewards. And
that it is fundamentally the highest Self--as constituting the inner
Self of Vāyu and other deities--which is pleased by offerings, and
bestows rewards for them is declared by texts such as 'Offerings and
pious works, all this he bears who is the nave of the Universe. He is
Agni and Vāyu, he is Sun and Moon' (Mahānār. Up. I, 6, 7). Similarly in
the antaryāmin-brāhmana, 'He who dwells in Vāyu, of whom Vāyu is the
body'; 'He who dwells in Agni,' &c. Smriti expresses itself similarly,
'Whatsoever devotee wishes to worship with faith whatsoever divine form,
of him do I make that faith unshakable. Endued with such faith he
endeavours to propitiate him and obtains from him his desires--those
indeed being ordained by me' (Bha. Gī. VII, 21-22); 'For I am the
enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices' (IX, 24)--where Lord means him
who bestows the reward for the sacrifices. 'To the gods go the
worshippers of the gods, and those devoted to me go to me' (VII, 23). In
ordinary life men, by agriculture and the like, acquire wealth in
various forms, and by means of this propitiate their king, either
directly or through his officials and servants; and the king thereupon
is seen to reward them in a manner corresponding to the measure of their
services and presents. The Vedānta-texts, on the other hand, give
instruction on a subject which transcends the sphere of all the other
means of knowledge, viz. the highest Person who is free from all shadow
even of imperfection, and a treasure-house as it were of all exalted
qualities in their highest state of perfection; on sacrifices, gifts,
oblations, which are helpful towards the propitiation of that Person; on
praise, worship, and meditation, which directly propitiate him; and on
the rewards which he, thus propitiated, bestows, viz. temporal happiness
and final Release.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'reward.'




THIRD PĀDA.

1. What is understood from all the Vedānta-texts (is one), on account of
the non-difference of injunction and the rest.

The Sūtras have stated whatever has to be stated to the end of rousing
the desire of meditation-concluding with the fact that Brahman bestows
rewards. Next the question is introduced whether the vidyās (i.e. the
different forms of meditation on Brahman which the Vedānta-texts enjoin)
are different or non-different, on the decision of which question it
will depend whether the qualities attributed to Brahman in those vidyās
are to be comprised in one act of meditation or not.--The first
subordinate question arising here is whether one and the same meditation--
as e.g. the vidyā of Vaisvānara--which is met with in the text of
several sākhās, constitutes one vidyā or several.--The vidyās are
separate, the Pūrvapakshin maintains; for the fact that the same matter
is, without difference, imparted for a second time, and moreover stands
under a different heading--both which circumstances necessarily attend
the text's being met with in different sākhās--proves the difference of
the two meditations. It is for this reason only that a restrictive
injunction, such as the one conveyed in the text, 'Let a man tell this
science of Brahman to those only who have performed the rite of carrying
fire on their head' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 10)--which restricts the impaiting
of knowledge to the Ātharvanikas, to whom that rite is peculiar--has any
sense; for if the vidyās were one, then the rite mentioned, which is a
part of the vidyā, would be valid for the members of other sākhās also,
and then the restriction enjoined by the text would have no meaning.--
This view is set aside by the Sūtra, 'What is understood from all the
Vedānta-texts' is one and the same meditation, 'because there is non-
difference of injunction and the rest.' By injunction is meant the
injunction of special activities denoted by different verbal roots--such
as upāsīta 'he should meditate,' vidyāt 'he should know.' The and the
rest' of the Sūtra is meant to comprise as additional reasons the
circumstances mentioned in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā-sūtras (II, 4, 9). Owing to
all these circumstances, non-difference of injunction and the rest, the
same vidyā is recognised in other sākhās also. In the Chāandogya (V, 12,
2) as well as in the Vājasaneyaka we meet with one and the same
injunction (viz. 'He should meditate on Vaisvānara'). The form
(character, rūpa) of the meditations also is the same, for the form of a
cognition solely depends on its object; and the object is in both cases
the same, viz. Vaisvānara. The name of the two vidyās also is the same,
viz. the knowledge of Vaisvānara. And both vidyās are declared to have
the same result, viz. attaining to Brahman. All these reasons establish
the identity of vidyās even in different sākhās.--The next Sūtra refers
to the reasons set forth for his view by the Pūrvapakshin and refutes
them.




2. If it be said (that the vidyās are not one) on account of difference,
we deny this, since even in one (vidyā there may be repetition).

If it be said that there is no oneness of vidyā, because the fact of the
same matter being stated again without difference, and being met with in
a different chapter, proves the object of injunction to be different; we
reply that even in one and the same vidyā some matter may be repeated
without any change, and under a new heading (in a different chapter); if,
namely, there is difference of cognising subjects. Where the cognising
person is one only, repetition of the same matter under a new heading
can only be explained as meaning difference of object enjoined, and
hence separation of the two vidyās. But where the cognising persons are
different (and this of course is eminently so in the case of different
sākhās), the double statement of one and the same matter explains itself
as subserving the cognition of those different persons, and hence does
not imply difference of matter enjoined.--The next Sūtra refutes the
argument founded on a rite enjoined in the Mundaka.




3. For (the sirovrata) concerns the mode of the study of the Veda; also
on account of (that rite) being a heading in the samākāra; and the
restriction is like that of the libations.

What the text says as to a restriction connected with the 'vow of the
head,' does not intimate a difference of vidyās. For that vow does not
form part of the vidyā. The restriction refers only to a peculiarity of
the _study_ of the Veda on the part of the Ātharvanikas, being meant to
establish that they should possess that special qualification which the
rite produces; but it does not affect the vidyā itself. This is proved
by the subsequent clause, 'a man who has not performed that rite may not
_read_ the text,' which directly connects the rite with the studying of
the text. And it is further proved by the fact that in the book of the
Ātharvanikas, called 'sāmākara,' that rite is referred to as a rite
connected with the Veda (not with the special vidyā set forth in the
Mundaka), viz. in the passage, 'this is explained already by the Veda-
observance' (which extends the details of the sirovrata, there called
veda-vrata, to other observances). By the _knowledge of Brahman_
(referred to in the Mundaka-text 'let a man tell this science of Brahman
to those only,' &c.), we have therefore to understand knowledge of the
Veda in general. And that restriction is 'like that of the
libations'--i. e. it is analogous to the restriction under which the
sava-libations, beginning with the Saptasūrya-libation, and terminating
with the Sataudana-libation, are offered in the one fire which is used
by the followers of the Atharvan, and not in the ordinary three fires.




4. Scripture also declares this.

Scripture also shows that (identical) meditation is what all the Vedānta-
texts intimate. The Chāndogya (VIII, 1, 1 ff.) declares that that which
is within the small space in the heart is to be enquired into, and then
in reply to the question what the thing to be enquired into is, says
that it is the highest Self possessing the eight attributes, freedom
from all evil and the rest, which is to be meditated upon within the
heart. And then the Taittiriya-text, referring to this declaration in
the Chāndogya, says, 'Therein is a small space, free from all grief;
what is within that is to be meditated upon' (Mahānār. Up. X, 23), and
thus likewise enjoins meditation on the highest Self possessing the
eight qualities. And this is possible only if, owing to unity of vidya,
the qualities mentioned in the first text are included also in the
meditation enjoined in the second text.--Having thus established the
unity of meditations, the Sūtras proceed to state the practical effect
of such unity.




5. (Meditation) thus being equal, there is combination (of gunas); on
account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves
injunction.

The meditation in all Vedānta-texts thus being the same, the qualities
mentioned in one text are to be combined with those mentioned in another;
'on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves
injunction.' We find that in connexion with certain injunctions of
meditation--such as the meditation on Vaisvānara, or the small ether
within the heart--the text of some individual Vedānta-book mentions
certain secondary matters (qualities, guna) which subserve that
meditation; and as these gunas are connected with the meditation they
are to be comprised in it, so that they may accomplish their aim, i.e.
of subserving the meditation. For the same reason therefore we have to
enclose in the meditation gunas mentioned in other Vedānta-texts; for
being also connected with the meditation they subserve it in the same
way.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'what is intimated by all
Vedānta-texts.




6. If it be said that there is difference on account of the text; we say
no; on account of non-difference.

So far it has been shown that the non-difference of injunction, and so
on, establishes the unity of meditations, and that owing to the latter
the special features of meditation enjoined in different texts have to
be combined. Next, an enquiry is entered upon whether in the case of
certain particular meditations there actually exists, or not, that non-
difference of injunction which is the cause of meditations being
recognised as identical. A meditation on the Udgītha is enjoined in the
text of the Chandogas, as well as in that of the Vājasaneyins (Ch. Up. I,
2; Bri. Up. I, 3); and the question arises whether the two are to be
viewed as one meditation or not. The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former
alternative. For, he says, there is no difference of injunction, and so
on, since both texts enjoin as the object of meditation the Udgītha
viewed under the form of Prāna; since there is the same reward promised
in both places, viz. mastering of one's enemies; since the form of
meditation is the same, the Udgītha being in both cases viewed under the
form of Prāna; since the injunction is the same, being conveyed in both
cases by the same verbal root (vid, to know); and since both meditations
have the same technical name, viz. udgītha-vidyā. The Sūtra states this
view in the form of the refutation of an objection raised by the
advocate of the final view. We do not admit, the objector says, the
unity maintained by you, since the texts clearly show a difference of
form. The text of the Vājasaneyins represents as the object of
meditation that which is the agent in the act of singing out the Udgītha;
while the text of the Chandogas enjoins meditation on what is the object
of the action of singing out (i. e. the Udgītha itself). This
discrepancy establishes difference in the character of the meditation,
and as this implies difference of the object enjoined, the mere non-
difference of injunction, and so on, is of no force, and hence the two
meditations are separate ones.--This objection the Pūrvapakshin impugns,
'on account of non-difference.' For both texts, at the outset, declare
that the Udgītha is the means to bring about the conquest of enemies
(Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgītha'
(Bri. Up.); 'The gods took the Udgītha, thinking they would with that
overcome the Asuras'--Ch. Up.). In order therefore not to stultify this
common beginning, we must assume that in the clause 'For them that
breath sang out' (Bri. Up.), the Udgītha, which really is the object of
the action of singing, is spoken of as the agent. Otherwise the term
udgītha in the introductory passage ('by means of the Udgītha') would
have to be taken as by implication denoting the agent (while directly it
indicates the instrument).--Hence there is oneness of the two vidyās.--
Of this view the next Sūtra disposes.




7. Or not, on account of difference of subject-matter; as in the case of
the attribute of being higher than the high, and so on.

There is no unity of the two vidyās, since the subject-matter of the two
differs. For the tale in the Chāndogya-text, which begins 'when the
Devas and the Asuras struggled together,' connects itself with the
pranava (the syllable Om) which is introduced as the object of
meditation in Chįnd. I, 1, 1, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as
the Udgītha'; and the clause forming part of the tale,'they meditated on
that chief breath as Udgītha.' therefore refers to a meditation on the
pranava which is a part only of the Udgītha. In the text of the Vāja-
saneyins; on the other hand, there is nothing to correspond to the
introductory passage which in the Chāndogya-text determines the subject-
matter, and the text clearly states that the meditation refers to the
whole Udgītha (not only the pranava). And this difference of leading
subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again
difference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity
of vidyās. Thus the object of meditation for the Chandogas is the
pranava viewed under the form of Prāna; while for the Vājasaneyins it is
the Udgātri (who sings the Udgītha), imaginatively identified with Prāna.
Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between
the later and the earlier part of the story of the Vājasaneyins. For as
a meditation on the Udgātri necessarily extends to the Udgītha, which is
the object of the activity of singing, the latter also helps to bring
about the result, viz. the mastering of enemies.--There is thus no unity
of vidyā, although there may be non-difference of injunction, and so on.--
'As in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high,' &c. In
one and the same sākhā there are two meditations, in each of which the
highest Self is enjoined to be viewed under the form of the pranava (Ch.
Up. I, 6; I, 9), and in so far the two vidyās are alike. But while the
former text enjoins that the pranava has to be viewed under the form of
a golden man, in the latter he has to be viewed as possessing the
attributes of being higher than the high, and owing to this difference
of attributes the two meditations must be held separate (a_ fortiori_,
then, those meditations are separate which have different objects of
meditation).




8. If that be declared on account of name; (we object, since) that is
also (where the objects of injunction differ).

If the oneness of the vidyās be maintained on the ground that both have
the same name, viz. udgītha-vidyā, we point out that oneness is found
also where the objects enjoined are different. The term agnihotra is
applied equally to the permanent agnihotra and to that agnihotra which
forms part of the sacrifice called 'Kundapāyinām ayanam'; and the term
udgītha is applied equally to the many different meditations described
in the first prapāthaka of the Chāndogya.




9. And (this is) appropriate, on account of the extension.

Since the pranava, which is a part of the udgītha, is introduced as the
subject of meditation in the first prapāthaka of the Chāndogya, and
extends over the later vidyās also, it is appropriate to assume that
also in the clause 'the gods took the udgītha'--which stands in the
middle--the term udgītha denotes the pranava. Expressions such as 'the
cloth is burned' show that frequently the whole denotes the part.--The
conclusion from all this is that in the Chāndogya the object of
meditation is constituted by the pranava--there termed udgītha--viewed
under the form of prāna; while in the Vājasaneyaka the term udgītha
denotes the whole udgītha, and the object of meditation is he who
produces the udgītha, i.e. the udgātri, viewed under the form of prāna.
And this proves that the two vidyās are separate.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'difference.'




10. On account of non-difference of everything, those elsewhere.

The Chāndogya and the Vajasaneyaka alike record a meditation on Prana;
the object of meditation being Prana as possessing the qualities of
being the oldest and the best, and also as possessing certain other
qualities such as being the richest, and so on (Ch. Up. V, 1; Bri. Up.
VI, 1). In the text of the Kaushītakins, on the other hand, there is a
meditation on Prāna which mentions the former qualities ('being the
best' and 'being the oldest'), but not the latter ('being the richest,'
and so on). This, the Pūrvapakshin maintains, constitutes a difference
between the objects of meditation, and hence between the meditations
themselves.--This view the Sūtra sets aside 'on account of non-
difference of everything, those elsewhere.' There is no difference of
meditation. Those qualities, viz. being the richest, and so on, are to
be meditated upon in the other place also, viz. in the meditation on
Prāna of the Kaushītakins; 'since there is non-difference of everything,'
i.e. since the text of the Kaushītakins also exhibits the very same
method, in all its details, for proving what it is undertaken to prove,
viz. that Prāna is the oldest and best. And for that proof it is
required that Prāna should be viewed as possessing also the quality of
being the richest, and so on, and these qualities therefore have to be
comprised in the meditation of the Kaushītakins also. Hence there is no
difference of meditation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-
difference of everything.'

In the same way as the meditation on Prāna as the oldest and best cannot
be accomplished without Prāna being also meditated upon as the richest,
and so on, and as hence these latter qualities have to be comprised in
the meditation on Prāna of the Kaushītakins, although they are not
expressly mentioned there; thus those qualities of Brahman also, without
which the meditation on Brahman cannot be accomplished, must be included
in all meditations on Brahman--this is the point to be proved next.




11. Bliss and other qualities, as belonging to the subject of the
qualities.

The point to be decided here is whether, or not, the essential qualities
of Brahman are to be included in all meditations on the highest Brahman.--
Since there is no valid reason for including in a meditation those
qualities which are not expressly mentioned in the section containing
that meditation, only those qualities which are thus expressly mentioned
should be included!--This primā facie view is negatived by the Sūtra.
The clause, 'on account of non-difference,' has to be carried on from
the preceding Sūtra. As the 'subject of the qualities,' i.e. Brahman is
the same in all meditations, the qualities which do not exist apart from
their subject, viz. bliss, and so on, are to be comprised in all
meditations.--But for the same reason then such qualities as 'having joy
for its head' (Taitt. Up. II, 5) would also have to be included in all
meditations on Brahman!--This the next Sūtra negatives.




12. Such qualities as having joy for its head, and so on, are not
established, for if there were difference (of members) there would be
increase and decrease.

The declaration that the essential qualities of Brahman are established
for all meditations, does not imply that such attributes as 'having joy
for its head' are equally established. For the latter are not qualities
of Brahman, since they are mere elements in a figurative representation
of Brahman under the form of an animal body. Otherwise, i.e. if Brahman
really possessed different members, such as head, wings, and so on, it
would be liable to increase and decrease, and this would be in conflict
with texts such as 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman.'--But if
this reasoning holds good, then all the infinite qualities belonging to
Brahman such as lordly power, generosity, compassion, and so on--all of
which are incapable of existing apart from the subject to which they
belong-would have to be comprehended in all those meditations on Brahman
where they are not expressly mentioned; and this could not possibly be
done, as those qualities are infinite in number.--This difficulty the
next Sūtra removes.




13. But the others, on account of equality with the thing.

Those other qualities which are 'equal to the thing,' i. e. which are
attributes determining the essential character of the thing, and
therefore necessarily entering into the idea of the thing, must be
included in all meditations, no less than the thing itself. To this
class belong qualities such as true being, knowledge, bliss, purity,
infinity, and so on. For of Brahman--which by texts such as 'that from
which all these beings,' &c. had been suggested as the cause of the
world--the essential definition is given in texts such as 'the True,
knowledge, infinite is Brahman'; 'bliss is Brahman,' and others; and
hence, in order that a true notion may be formed of Brahman as the
object of meditation, such qualities as true being, bliss, and so on,
have to be included in all meditations on Brahman. Such additional
qualities, on the other hand, as e.g. compassion, which indeed cannot
exist apart from the subject to which they belong, but are not necessary
elements of the idea of Brahman, are to be included in those meditations
only where they are specially mentioned.

But, an objection is raised, if 'having joy for its head' and the like
are not qualities of Brahman, but merely serve the purpose of a
figurative representation of Brahman, for what purpose then is this
representation introduced? For if something is represented as something
else, there must be some motive for doing so. Where, e.g. the sacred
text compares the meditating devotee to a charioteer, its body and
organs to a chariot, and so on, it does so for the purpose of assisting
the subjection to the Self of the means of meditation, i.e. the body,
the senses, and so on. But in the present case no such purpose is to be
discerned, and hence it must needs be admitted that having joy for its
head, and so on, are real qualities of Brahman.--The next Sūtra disposes
of this difficulty.




14. For meditation, owing to the absence of purpose.

As no other purpose can be assigned, the text must be supposed to
represent Brahman as having joy for its head, and so on, for the purpose
of meditation. In order to accomplish the meditation on Brahman which is
enjoined in the text 'he who knows (i.e. meditates on) Brahman reaches
the Highest,' the text represents the Brahman consisting of bliss as
made up of joy, satisfaction, &c., and compares these to the head, the
wings, and so on. The Self of bliss, which is the inmost of all the
Selfs mentioned in the text, is by this means represented to the mind in
a definite shape; just as in the preceding sections the Self of food,
the Self of breath, and the rest had similarly been represented in
definite shapes, consisting of head, wings, and so on. As thus the
qualities of having joy for its head, &c. are merely secondary marks of
the Self of bliss, they are not necessarily included in each meditation
that involves the idea of that Self.




15. And on account of the term 'Self.'

That this is so further follows from the fact that in the clause
'different from this is the inner Self consisting of bliss' the term
'Self is used. For as the Self cannot really possess a head, wings, and
tail, its having joy for its head, and so on, can only be meant in a
metaphorical sense, for the sake of easier comprehension.--But, in the
preceding sections, the term _Self_ had been applied to what is _not_ of
the nature of Self--the text speaking of the Self of breath, the Self of
mind, and so on; how then are we able to determine that in the phrase
'the Self of bliss' the term Self denotes a true _Self_?--To this the
next Sūtra replies.




16. There is reference to the Self, as in other places; on account of
the subsequent passage.

In the clause,'different from that is the Self of bliss,' the term Self
can refer to the highest Self only; 'as in other cases,' i.e. as in
other passages--'the Self only was this in the beginning; it thought,
let me send forth the worlds,' and similar ones--the term 'Self denotes
the highest Self only.--But whereby is this proved?--'By the subsequent
passagel, i.e. by the passage, 'he desired, may I be many, may I grow
forth,'--which refers to the Self of bliss.




17. If it be said 'on account of connexion'; it may be so, on account of
ascertainment.

But as in the preceding sections the term Self is seen to be connected
with what is not of the nature of the Self, such as the Self of breath,
and so on, it is not possible to draw a valid conclusion from the
subsequent passage!--It _is_ possible, the Sūtra replies, 'on account of
ascertainment.' For the previous clause, 'from that Self there
originated the Ether,' settles in the mind the idea of the highest Self,
and that idea then is transferred in succession to the (so-called) Self
of breath, the Self of mind, and so on, until it finally finds rest in
the Self of bliss, beyond which there is no other Self; while at the
same time the subsequent clause 'he desired' confirms the idea of the
highest Self. The term Self thus connects itself from the beginning with
things which are not true Selfs, because the highest Self is as it were
viewed in them.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'bliss and the rest.'




18. The new (thing is enjoined); on account of the statement of what has
to be done.

The Sūtra discusses an additional question connected with the meditation
on breath. Both texts--the Chāndogya as well as the Vājasaneyaka-declare
that water constitutes a dress for prana, and refer to the rinsing of
the mouth with water. The doubt here arises whether what the texts mean
to enjoin is the rinsing of the mouth, or a meditation on prāna as
having water for its dress.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former view;
for, he says, the Vājasaneyaka uses the injunctive form 'he is to rinse,'
while there is no injunctive form referring to the meditation; and
what the text says in praise of the breath thus not being allowed to
remain naked may be taken as a mere glorification of the act of rinsing.
And as ordinary rinsing of the mouth, subsequent to eating, is already
established by Smriti and custom, we must conclude that the text means
to enjoin rinsing of the mouth of a different kind, viz. as auxiliary to
the meditation on prāna.--To this the Sūtra replies that what the text
enjoins is the new' thing, i.e. the previously non-established
meditation on water as forming the dress of prāna. 'On account of the
statement of what has to be done,' i.e. on account of the statement of
what is not established--for only on the latter condition Scripture has
a meaning. The beginning as well as the end of the Vājasaneyaka-text
clearly refers to a meditation on the water used for rinsing as forming
a dress for prāna; and as rinsing is already established by Smriti and
custom, we naturally infer that what the text enjoins is a meditation on
breath as having the water used in rinsing for its dress. This also
explains why the Chāndogya-text does not mention the rinsing at all, but
merely the clothing of breath with water.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the statement of what has to be done.'




19. And (the qualities) thus being equal, on account of non-difference.

In the book of the Vājasaneyaka, called Agnirahasya, we meet with a
meditation on Brahman called Sāndilyavidyā; and there is also a Sāndilya-
vidyā in the Brihadāranyaka. The Pūrvapakshin holds that these two
meditations are different since the latter text mentions qualities--such
as Brahman being the lord of all--which are not mentioned in the former;
the objects of meditation thus being different, the meditations
themselves are different.--This the Sūtra negatives. The object of
meditation is 'equal,' for both texts state the same qualities, such as
'consisting of mind,' and so on; and the additional qualities stated in
the Brihad-āranyaka, such as the rulership of Brahman,'do not differ'
from those equally stated by both texts, such as Brahman realising all
its purposes, and so on. Thus the objects of meditation do not differ in
character.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'what is equal.'




20. On account of connexion, thus elsewhere also.

In the Brihad-āranyaka (V, 5) it is said that Brahman is to be meditated
upon as abiding within the orb of the sun and within the right eye; and
then the text mentions two secret names of Brahman--_aham_ and _ahar_.
Here the Pūrvapakshin holds that both these names are to be comprehended
in each of the two meditations 'On account of connexion,' i.e. on
account of the object of meditation, i.e. Brahman being one only,
although connected with different abodes, it is 'thus elsewhere also,' i.
e. the same conclusion which had been arrived at in the case of the
Sāndilya-vidyās, has to be accepted with regard to Brahman abiding in
the sun and in the eye. The meditation is one only, and hence the two
secret names apply to Brahman in both its abodes.--This view the next
Sūtra negatives.




21. Or not so, on account of difference.

This is not so, for as Brahman is to be meditated upon in two different
abodes, the meditations are separate. In both the Sāndilya-vidyās, on
the other hand, Brahman is to be meditated upon as abiding within the
heart.




22. The text also declares this.

That the qualities of that which abides within the sun and that which
abides in the eye are not to be combined, the text itself moreover shows
by specially stating that the characteristics of the one are those of
the other. For such a special transfer of qualities is needed only where
the qualities are not of themselves established, i.e. where the two
things are naturally different.--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'connexion,'




23. And for the same reason the holding together and the pervading the
sky.

In the Taittiriyaka and in the khilas of the Rānāyanīyas we have the
following passage: 'Gathered together are the powers among which Brahman
is the oldest; Brahman as the oldest in the beginning stretched out the
sky. Brahman was born as the first of all beings; who may rival that
Brahman?' which declares that Brahman gathered together all the most
ancient powers, that it pervades the sky, and so on. And as these
attributes are not stated in connexion with any special meditation, we
must infer that they are to be included in all meditations whatever on
Brahman.--This primā facie view is controverted by the Sūtra. The
holding together of all powers, &c., although not mentioned in connexion
with any special meditation, is not to be included in all meditations
whatever, but to be connected with particular meditations 'on the same
ground,' i.e. according to difference of place. _Where_ those qualities
have to be included must be decided on the ground of feasibility. The
attribute of pervading the whole heaven cannot be included in a
meditation on Brahman as abiding within a small place such as the heart,
and hence the other attributes also which are stated together with the
attribute mentioned cannot be included in those meditations. And when we
find that in meditations on Brahman as abiding within a small place it
is said that Brahman is greater than the earth, or that the ether within
the heart is as great as the universal ether, these attributes cannot be
taken in their literal sense and hence included in those meditations,
but must be viewed as merely meant to glorify the object proposed for
meditation.--Herewith terminates the adhikarana of 'holding together.'




24. And although (they both be) meditations on man; on account of others
not being recorded.

In the Taittiriyaka as well as the Chāndogya we meet with a meditation
on man (purusha-vidyā), in which parts of the sacrifice are fancifully
identified with the parts of the human body.--Here the Pūrvapakshin
maintains that these two meditations are identical; for, he says, both
meditations have the same name (purusha-vidyā), and the same character
as stated above; and as the Taittirīyaka mentions no fruit of the
meditation, the fruit declared in the Chāndogya holds good for the
Taittirīyaka also, and thus there is no difference of fruit.--This view
the Sūtra negatives. Although both meditations are meditations on man,
yet they are separate 'on account of the others not being recorded,' i.e.
on account of the qualities recorded in one sākhā not being recorded in
the other. For the Taittirīyaka mentions the three libations, while the
Chāndogya does not, and so on. The character of the two meditations thus
differs. And there is a difference of result also. For an examination of
the context in the Taittirīyaka shows that the purusha-vidyā is merely a
subordinate part of a meditation on Brahman, the fruit of which the text
declares to be that the devotee reaches the greatness of Brahman; while
the Chāndogya meditation is an independent one, and has for its reward
the attainment of long life. The two meditations are thus separate, and
hence the details of one must not be included in the other.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the meditation on man.'




25. On account of the difference of sense of piercing and so on.

The text of the Ātharvanikas exhibits at the beginning of their
Upanishad some mantras, 'Pierce the sukra, pierce the heart.' The
followers of the Sāma-veda read at the beginning of their rahasya-
brāhmana 'O God Savitri, promote the sacrifice.' The Kāthakas and the
Taittirīyakas have 'May Mitra be propitious to us, may Varuna be
propitious.' The Sātyāyanins have 'Thou art a white horse, a tawny and a
black one!' The Kaushītakins have a Brāhmana referring to the Mahavrata-
ceremony, 'Indra having slain Vritra became great.' The Kaushītakins
also have a Mahāvrata-brāhmana. 'Prajāpati is the year; his Self is that
Mahāvrata.' The Vājasaneyins have a Brāhmana referring to the Pravargya,
'The gods sat down for a sattra-celebration.' With reference to all this
a doubt arises whether these mantras and the sacrificial works referred
to in the Brāhmana texts form parts of the meditations enjoined in the
Upanishads or not.--The Pūrvapakshin affirms this, on the ground that as
the mantras and works are mentioned in the immediate neighbourhood of
the meditations the idea of their forming parts of the latter naturally
presents itself. Such mantras as 'pierce the heart' and works such as
the pravargya may indeed--on the basis of direct statement (sruti),
inferential mark (linga), and syntactical connexion (vākya), which are
stronger than mere proximity--be understood to be connected with certain
actions; but, on the other hand, mantras such as 'May Varuna be
propitious' have no application elsewhere, and are suitable
introductions to meditations. We therefore take them to be parts of the
meditations, and hence hold that those mantras are to be included in all
meditations.--This view the Sūtra sets aside 'on account of the
difference of sense of piercing, and so on.' The inferential marks
contained in texts such as 'pierce the sukra, pierce the heart'; 'I
shall speak the right, I shall speak the true,' show that the mantras
have an application in connexion with certain magical practices, or else
the study of the Veda, and the like, and do not therefore form part of
meditations. That is to say--in the same way as the mantra 'pierce the
heart' enables us to infer that also the mantra 'pierce the sukra'
belongs to some magical rite, so we infer from the special meaning of
mantras such as 'I shall speak the right,' &c., that also mantras such
as 'May Mitra be propitious' are connected with the study of the Veda,
and do not therefore form part of meditations. That mantras of this kind
and Brāhmana passages relative to the Pravargya and the like are placed
at the beginning of Upanishads is owing to their having, like the latter,
to be studied in the forest.--Herewith terminates the adhikarana of
'piercing and the like.'




26. But in the case of the getting rid of (it has to be combined with
the obtaining), as it is supplementary to statements of obtaining; as in
the case of the kusas, the metres, the praise, and the singing. This has
been explained.

The Chandogas read in their text 'Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes
his hair, and shaking off the body as the moon frees herself from the
mouth of Rāhu, I obtain the world of Brahman' (Ch. Up. VIII, 13). The
Ātharvanikas have 'He who knows, shaking off good and evil, free from
passion, reaches the highest oneness.' The Sātyāyanins have 'His sons
obtain his inheritance, his friends the good, his enemies the evil he
has done.' The Kaushītakins 'He shakes off his good and his evil deeds.
His beloved relatives obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil
he has done.' Two of these texts mention only the shaking off, on the
part of him who knows, of his good and evil works; one mentions only the
obtainment of these works, on the part of friends and enemies; and one
mentions both these occurrences.--Now both the occurrences, although
mentioned in several meditations, must be considered elements of all
meditations: for whoever, on the basis of a knowledge of Brahman,
reaches Brahman, necessarily leaves behind all his good and evil works,
and those works unless thus left behind cannot be obtained by others.
Meditation on those two matters therefore enters as an element into all
meditations. The doubtful point, however, is whether there is option
between the meditation on the abandonment of works, and that on the
obtainment of works by others, and that on both these events; or whether
in each case all these meditations are to be combined.--There is option,
the Pūrvapakshin holds; for the reason that the texts make different
declarations on this point. For, if the meditations had to be combined,
there would be in each case meditation on both the matters mentioned;
and as such double meditation is established by the Kaushitakin text, it
would follow that the statements of the other texts are without meaning.
Thus the only motive for the declarations made in different places can
be to allow option. Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the
ground that declarations of the same matter, made in different places,
are made with reference to the difference of students severally reading
the several texts; for this holds good in those cases only where
identical statements are made in different texts; while in the case
under discussion two sākhās mention the abandonment of works, and one
their passing over to other persons. Nor can you account for the
difference of statement on the ground of difference of vidyās; for you
yourself maintain that the meditations in question form part of all
meditations.--This view the Sūtra impugns, 'but where the getting rid of
is mentioned,' &c. Where a text mentions either the abandonment only of
works or only their being obtained by others, both these matters must
necessarily be combined, since the statement as to the works being
obtained forms a supplement to the statement of their being abandoned.
For the former statement declares the place to which the good and evil
works, got rid of by him who knows Brahman, are transferred.--This
supplementary relation of two statements the Sūtra illustrates by some
parallel cases. A clause in the text of the Sātyāyanins, 'the kusas are
the children of the udumbara tree,' forms a defining supplement to a
more general statement in the text of the Kaushītakins, 'the kusas are
the children of the tree.' The clause, 'the metres of the gods are prior,'
defines the order of the metres which in other texts mentioning 'the
metres of the gods and Asuras' had been left undefined, and therefore
forms a supplement to those texts. Analogous is the relation of the
clause, 'he assists the stotra of the shodasin when the sun has half
risen,' to the less definite statement 'he assists with gold the stotra
of the shodasin;' and the relation of the clause, 'the adhvaryu is not
to sing,' to the general injunction 'all the priests join in the singing.'
Unless we admit that one statement, which defines some other more
general statement, may stand to the latter in a supplementary relation,
we are driven to assume an optional proceeding, and this is
objectionable as long as there is any other way open; according to a
principle laid down in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā (X, 8, 15). As the clauses
referring to the abandonment of the works, and those referring to their
being taken up by others, thus form one connected whole, there is no
such thing as mere abandonment and mere taking up, and hence there can
be no option between the two. That the text of the Kaushītakins mentions
both thus explains itself, on the ground that the several declarations
of what is really only one and the same matter are directed to different
hearers.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'getting rid of.'




27. At departing; there being nothing to be reached. For thus others
(also declare).

The further question arises whether the putting off of all good and evil
deeds takes place only at the time when the soul leaves the body, or
also after it has departed and is on its journey to the world of Brahman.
The Pūrvapakshin holds the latter view, for, he says, the texts declare
both. The Kaushītakins say that the soul shakes off its good and evil
deeds when it crosses the river Virajā in the world of Brahman; while
the Tāndins say 'Shaking off all evil, and shaking off the body,' &c.,
which shows that the deeds are shaken off at the time when the soul
leaves the body. And when the Sātyāyanaka says that 'his sons obtain his
inheritance, his friends his good deeds,' and so on, this also intimates
that the deeds are shaken off at the time when the soul leaves the body.
We therefore must conclude that a part of the deeds is left behind at
the moment of death, and the remainder on the journey to the world of
Brahman.--This view the Sūtra controverts. All the good and evil deeds
of the dying man are left behind, without remainder, at the time when
the soul parts from the body. For after the soul of him who knows has
departed from the body, 'there is nothing to be reached,' i.e. there are
no further pleasures and pains to be enjoyed as the result of good and
evil deeds, different from the obtaining of Brahman, which is the fruit
of knowledge. Thus others 'also declare that, subsequently to the soul's
departure from the body, there is no enjoyment of any pain or pleasure
different from the obtaining of Brahman. 'But when he is free of the
body, then neither pleasure nor pain touches him'; 'Thus does that
serene being, rising from this body, appear in its own form as soon as
it has approached the highest light' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1; 3); 'For him
there is delay only so long as he is not freed (from the body); then he
will be perfect' (VI, 14, 2).




28. As it is desired; on account of there being no contradiction of
either.

The time when good and evil deeds are left behind thus having been
determined on the basis of the reason of the thing, the several words of
the passages must be construed as it is desired, i.e. so as not to
contradict either, i.e. either the declaration of scripture or the
reason of the thing. Thus in the text of the Kaushītakins the later
clause, 'he shakes off his good and evil deeds,' must be taken as coming
before the earlier passage 'having entered on that path of the gods.'--
Here the Pūrvapakshin raises a new objection.




29. There is meaning of the soul's going (only) on the twofold
hypothesis; for otherwise there is contradiction.

It is only on the hypothesis of a part of the good and evil works being
left behind at the time of the soul's departure from the body, and
another part later on, and the effacement of works thus taking place in
a double way, that a sense can be found in the scriptural declaration of
the soul proceeding on the path of the gods. For otherwise there would
be a contradiction. For if all the works perished at the time of the
soul's departure from the body, the subtle body also would perish, and
if this were so, no going on the part of the mere Self would be possible.
It is not therefore possible that at the time of the soul's departure
from the body all works should perish without a remainder.--To this the
next Sūtra replies.




30. (That assumption) is justified; on account of the perception of
things which are marks of that; as in ordinary experience.

The assumption of all the works perishing at the time of 'departure'
involves no contradiction; since we perceive, in the sacred texts,
matters which are marks of connexion with a body even on the part of the
soul which has divested itself of all its works and become manifest in
its true nature. Compare 'Having approached the highest light he
manifests himself in his true form'; 'He moves about there laughing,
playing, and rejoicing'; 'He becomes a self-ruler, he moves about in all
worlds according to his will'; 'He becomes one, he becomes three,' &c.
(Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3; VII, 25, 2; 26, 2). All these texts refer to the
soul's connexion with a body. The soul therefore, joined to the subtle
body, may proceed on the path of the gods, even after all its works have
passed away. But how can the subtle body persist, when the works which
originate it have passed away? Through the power of knowledge, we reply.
Knowledge does not indeed by itself originate the subtle body, but it
possesses the power of making that body persist, even after the gross
body--which is the instrument for the experience of all ordinary pains
and pleasures--and all works have passed away, so as thereby to make the
soul capable of moving on the path of the gods, and thus to obtain
Brahman which is the fruit of knowledge. 'As in ordinary life.' As in
ordinary life, a tank, which may have been made with a view to the
irrigation of rice-fields and the like, is maintained and used for the
purpose of drawing drinking-water, and so on, even after the intentions
which originally led to its being made have passed away.--Here an
objection is raised. It may be admitted, that at the time when a man
possessing true knowledge dies, all his works pass away without a
remainder, and that the subtle body only remains, enabling him to move
towards Brahman; but it cannot be held that the soul in that state does
not experience pain and pleasure; for we know from sacred tradition that
Vasishtha, Avāntara-tamas, and others, who had reached intuition of the
highest truth, entered after death on other embodiments, and experienced
pain and pleasure due to the birth of sons, various calamities, and so
on.--To this the next Sūtra replies.




31. Of those who have a certain office there is subsistence (of their
works) as long as the office lasts.

We do not maintain that all those who have reached true knowledge divest
themselves at the time of death of all their good and evil works; we
limit our view to those who immediately after death attain to moving on
the path, the first stage of which is light. Persons like Vasishtha, on
the other hand, who are entrusted with certain offices, do not
immediately after death attain to moving on the path beginning with
light, since the duties undertaken by them are not completely
accomplished. In the case of beings of this kind, who owing to
particular deeds have been appointed to particular offices, the effect
of the works which gave rise to the office does not pass away before
those offices are completely accomplished; for the effect of a work is
exhausted only through the complete enjoyment of its result. In the case
of those persons, therefore, the effects of the works which gave rise to
their office continue to exist as long as the office itself, and hence
they do not after death enter on the path beginning with light.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'passing away.'




32. There is no restriction (since) all (have to go on that path).
(Thus) there is non-contradiction of sacred text and Smriti.

The question here is whether Brahman is to be reached on the path of the
gods by those only who take their stand on those meditations which, like
the Upakosala-vidyā, describe that path, or by all who practise any of
the meditations on Brahman. The Pūrvapakshin holds the former view,
since there is no proof to show that in other vidyās the going on that
path is not mentioned, and since those other vidyās-such as the texts
'and those who in the forest meditate on faith and austerities,'and'
those who in the forest worship faith, the True' (Ch. Up. V, 10, 1; Bri.
Up. VI, 2, 15)--suggest to the mind the idea of the knowledge of Brahman.
This the Sūtra negatives. There is no restriction to that limited class
of devotees, since all who carry on meditations have to go on that path.
For on this latter assumption only text and inference, i.e. scripture
and authoritative tradition, are not contradicted. As to scripture, the
Chāndogya and the Vājasaneyaka alike, in the Pańkāgni-vidyā, declare
that all those who practise meditation go on that path. In the
Vājasaneyaka the words 'who know this' refer to those who practise the
meditation on the five fires, while the following words 'those who in
the forest meditate on faith and the True' refer to those who meditate
on Brahman; and the text then goes on to say that all those devotees go
to Brahman, on the path of the gods. Texts such as 'the True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman,' and 'the True must be enquired into,' prove that
the term 'the True' denotes Brahman; and as in the Chāndogya the term
'tapas' occurs in the corresponding place, we conclude that both these
terms, viz. _the True_ and tapas, denote nothing else but Brahman.
Meditation on Brahman, preceded by faith, is mentioned elsewhere also;
in the text which begins 'The True must be enquired into' we read
further on 'Faith must be enquired into' (Ch. Up. VII, 18, 16; 19).
Smriti also declares that all those who know Brahman proceed on the path
of the gods, 'Fire, the light, the day, the bright fortnight, the six
months of the sun's northern progress--proceeding by that road those who
know Brahman go to Brahman' (Bha. Gī. VIII, 24). And there are many
other Sruti and Smriti passages of this kind. The conclusion therefore
is that the Upakosalavidyā and similar texts merely refer to that going
of the soul which is common to all vidyās.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'non-restriction.'




33. But the conceptions of the Imperishable are to be comprised (in all
meditations). There being equality (of the Brahman to be meditated on)
and (those conceptions) existing (in Brahman); as in the case of what
belongs to the upasad. This has been explained.

We read in the Brihad-āranyaka (III, 8, 9),'O Gārgī, the Brāhmanas call
that the Akshara. It is neither coarse nor fine,' and so on. And in the
Atharvana (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5) we have 'The higher knowledge is that by
which the Akshara is apprehended. That which cannot be seen nor seized,'
&c. The doubt here arises whether all the qualities there predicated of
Brahman--called akshara, i.e. the Imperishable--and constituting
something contrary in nature to the apparent world, are to be included
in all meditations on Brahman, or only those where the text specially
mentions them. The Pūrvapakshin advocates the latter view; for, he says,
there is no authority for holding that the qualities which characterise
one meditation are characteristic of other meditations also; and such
negative attributes as are mentioned in those two texts do not--as
positive qualities such as bliss do--contribute to the apprehension of
the true nature of Brahman. What those two texts do is merely to deny of
Brahman, previously apprehended as having bliss, and so on, for its
essential qualities, certain qualities belonging to the empirical world,
such as grossness, and so on; for all negation must refer to an
established basis.--This view the Sūtra refutes. The ideas of absence of
grossness, and so on, which are connected with Brahman viewed as the
Akshara, are to be included in all meditations on Brahman. For the
imperishable (akshara) Brahman is the same in all meditations, and
qualities such as non-grossness enter into the conception of its
essential nature. The apprehension of a thing means the apprehension of
its specific character. But mere bliss, and so on, does not suggest the
specific character of Brahman, since those qualities belong also to the
individual soul. What is specifically characteristic of Brahman is bliss,
and so on, in so far as fundamentally opposed to all evil and
imperfection. The individual soul, on the other hand, although
fundamentally free from evil, yet is capable of connexion with evil. Now
being fundamentally opposed to evil implies having a character the
opposite of grossness and all similar qualities which belong to the
empirical world, material and mental. He therefore who thinks of Brahman
must think of it as having for its essential nature bliss, knowledge,
and so on, in so far as distinguished by absence of grossness and the
like, and those qualities, being no less essential than bliss, and so on,
must therefore be included in all meditations on Brahman.--The Sūtra
gives an instance illustrating the principle that qualities (secondary
matters) follow the principal matter to which they belong. As the mantra
'Agnir vai hotram vetu,' although given in the Sāma-veda, yet has to be
recited in the Yajur-veda style, with a subdued voice, because it stands
in a subordinate relation to the upasad-offerings prescribed for the
four-days 'sacrifice called Jamadagnya; those offerings are the
principal matter to which the subordinate matter--the mantra--has to
conform. This point is explained in the first section, i.e. in the Pūrva
Mīmāmsā-sūtras III, 3, 9.--But this being admitted, it would follow that
as Brahman is the principal matter in all meditations on Brahman, and
secondary matters have to follow the principal matter, also such
qualities as 'doing all works, enjoying all odours and the like,' which
are mentioned in connexion with special meditations only, would
indiscriminately have to be included in all meditations.--With reference
to this the next Sūtra says.




34. So much; on account of reflection.

Only so much, i.e. only those qualities which have to be included in all
meditations on Brahman, without which the essential special nature of
Brahman cannot be conceived, i.e. bliss, knowledge, and so on,
characterised by absence of grossness and the like. Other qualities,
such as doing all works and the like, although indeed following their
substrate, are explicitly to be meditated on in special meditations only.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the idea of the Imperishable.'




35. Should it be said that (the former reply refers) to that Self to
which the aggregate of material things belongs (since) otherwise the
difference (of the two replies) could not be accounted for; we say--no;
as in the case of instruction

In the Brihad-aranyaka (III, 4; 5) the same question is asked twice in
succession ('Tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the
Self who is within all'), while Yājńavalkya gives a different answer to
each ('He who breathes in the upbreathing,' &c.; 'He who overcomes
hunger and thirst,' &c.). The question here is whether the two
meditations, suggested by these sections, are different or not. They are
different, since the difference of reply effects a distinction between
the two vidyās. The former reply declares him who is the maker of
breathing forth, and so on to be the inner Self of all; the latter
describes him as free from hunger, thirst, and so on. It thence appears
that the former passage refers to the inner (individual) Self which is
different from body, sense-organs, internal organ and vital breath;
while the latter refers to that which again differs from the inner Self,
viz. the highest Self, free from hunger, thirst, and so on. As the
individual soul is inside the aggregate of material things, it may be
spoken of as being that inner Self of all. Although this kind of
inwardness is indeed only a relative one, we nevertheless must accept it
in this place; for if, desirous of taking this 'being the inner Self of
all' in its literal sense, we assumed the highest Self to be meant, the
difference of the two replies could not be accounted for. The former
reply evidently refers to the individual soul, since the highest Self
cannot be conceived as breathing forth, and so on; and the latter reply,
which declares the Self to be raised above hunger, &c., evidently refers
to the highest Self. This is expressed in the earlier part of the Sūtra:
'The former reply refers to the Self to which there belongs the
aggregate of material things, i.e. the individual soul as being the
inner Self of all; otherwise we could not account for the difference of
the two replies.'--The last words of the Sūtra negative this--'not so,'
i.e. there is no difference of vidyās, since both assertions and replies
refer to the highest Self. The question says in both places, 'the
Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self who is within all,'
and this clearly refers to the highest Self only. We indeed observe that
in some places the term _Brahman_ is, in a derived sense, applied to the
individual soul also; but the text under discussion, for distinction's
sake, adds the qualification 'the Brahman which is manifest' (sākshāt).
The quality of 'aparokshatva' (i.e. being that which does not transcend
the senses but lies openly revealed) also, which implies being connected
with all space and all time, suits Brahman only, which from texts such
as 'the True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' is known to be infinite.
In the same way the attribute of being the inner Self of all can belong
to the highest Self only, which texts such as 'He who dwelling within
the earth,' &c., declare to be the inner ruler of the universe. The
replies to the two questions likewise can refer to Brahman only. The
unconditional causal agency with regard to breath, declared in the
clause 'he who breathes in the upbreathing,' &c., can belong to the
highest Self only, not to the individual soul, since the latter
possesses no such causal power when in the state of deep sleep. Ushasta
thereupon, being not fully enlightened, since causality with regard to
breathing may in a sense be attributed to the individual soul also,
again asks a question, in reply to which Yājńavalkya clearly indicates
Brahman, 'Thou mayest not see the seer of sight,' &c., i.e. thou must
not think that my previous speech has named as the causal agent of
breathing the individual soul, which is the causal agent with regard to
those activities which depend on the sense-organs, viz. seeing, hearing,
thinking, and knowing; for in the state of deep sleep, swoon, and so on,
the soul possesses no such power. And moreover another text also--'Who
could breathe if that bliss existed not in the ether?' (Taitt. Up. II,
7)--declares that the highest Self only is the cause of the breathing of
all living beings. In the same way the answer to the second question can
refer to the highest Self only, which alone can be said to be raised
above hunger, thirst, and so on. For this reason also both replies wind
up with the same phrase, 'Everything else is of evil.' The iteration of
question and reply serves the purpose of showing that the same highest
Brahman which is the cause of all breathing is beyond all hunger, thirst,
and so on.--The Sūtra subjoins a parallel instance. 'As in the case of
instruction.' As in the vidyā of that which truly is (Ch. Up. VI, 1 ff.),
question and reply are iterated several times, in order to set forth the
various greatness and glory of Brahman.--Thus the two sections under
discussion are of the same nature, in so far as setting forth that the
one Brahman which is the inner Self of all is the cause of all life and
raised beyond all imperfections; and hence they constitute one
meditation only.--To this a new objection is raised. The two sections
may indeed both refer to the highest Brahman; nevertheless there is a
difference of meditation, as according to the one Brahman is to be
meditated upon as the cause of all life, and according to the other as
raised above all defects; this difference of character distinguishes the
two meditations. And further there is a difference of interrogators; the
first question being asked by Ushasta, the second by Kahola.




36. There is interchange (of ideas), for the texts distinguish; as in
other cases.

There is no difference of vidyā because both questions and answers have
one subject-matter, and because the one word that possesses enjoining
power proves the connexion of the two sections. Both questions have for
their topic Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all; and in the second
question the word 'eva' ('just,' 'very') in 'Tell me just that Brahman,'
&c., proves that the question of Kahola has for its subject the Brahman,
to the qualities of which the question of Ushasta had referred. Both
answers again refer to the one Brahman, viewed as the Self of all. The
idea of the injunction of the entire meditation again is suggested in
the second section only, 'Therefore a Brahmana, after he has done with
learning, is to wish to stand by real strength.' The object of
meditation being thus ascertained to be one, there must be effected a
mutual interchange of the ideas of Ushasta and Kahola, i.e. Ushasta's
conception of Brahman being the cause of all life must be entertained by
the interrogating Kahola also; and vice versa the conception of Kahola
as to Brahman being beyond hunger, thirst, and so on, must be
entertained by Ushasta also. This interchange being made, the difference
of Brahman, the inner Self of all, from the individual soul is
determined by both sections. For this is the very object of
Yājńavalkya's replies: in order to intimate that the inner Self of all
is different from the individual soul, they distinguish that Self as the
cause of all life and as raised above hunger, thirst, and so on. Hence
Brahman's being the inner Self of all is the only quality that is the
subject of meditation; that it is the cause of life and so on are only
means to prove its being such, and are not therefore to be meditated on
independently.--But if this is so, to what end must there be made an
interchange, on the part of the two interrogators, of their respective
ideas?--Brahman having, on the ground of being the cause of all life,
been ascertained by Ushasta as the inner Self of all, and different from
the individual soul, Kahola renews the question, thinking that the inner
Self of all must be viewed as different from the soul, on the ground of
some special attribute which cannot possibly belong to the soul; and
Yājńavalkya divining his thought thereon declares that the inner Self
possesses an attribute which cannot possibly belong to the soul, viz.
being in essential opposition to all imperfection. The interchange of
ideas therefore has to be made for the purpose of establishing the idea
of the individual nature of the object of meditation.--'As elsewhere,' i.
e. as in the case of the knowledge of that which truly is, the repeated
questions and replies only serve to define one and the same Brahman, not
to convey the idea of the object of meditation having to be meditated on
under new aspects.--But a new objection is raised--As there is, in the
Sad-vidyā also, a difference between the several questions and answers,
how is that vidyā known to be one?--To this question the next Sūtra
replies.




37. For one and the same (highest divinity), called the 'truly being,'
and so on (is the subject of that meditation).

For the highest divinity, called there _that which is_--which was
introduced in the clause 'that divinity thought,' &c.--is intimated by
all the following sections of that chapter. This is proved by the fact
that the attributes--'that_ which truly _is' and so on--which were
mentioned in the first section and confirmed in the subsequent ones, are
finally summed up in the statement, 'in that all this has its Self, that
is the True, that is the Self.'

Some interpreters construe the last two Sūtras as constituting two
adhikaranas. The former Sūtra, they say, teaches that the text, 'I am
thou, thou art I,' enjoins a meditation on the soul and the highest Self
as interchangeable. But as on the basis of texts such as 'All this is
indeed Brahman,' 'all this has its Self in Brahman,' 'Thou art that,'
the text quoted is as a matter of course understood to mean that there
is one universal Self, the teaching which it is by those interpreters
assumed to convey would be nothing new; and their interpretation
therefore must be rejected. The point as to the oneness of the
individual and the highest Self will moreover be discussed under IV, I,
3. Moreover, there is no foundation for a special meditation on Brahman
as the individual soul and the individual soul as Brahman, apart from
the meditation on the Self of all being one.--The second Sūtra, they say,
declares the oneness of the meditation on the True enjoined in the text,
'whosoever knows this great wonderful first-born as the True Brahman'
(_Bri_. Up. V, 4), and of the meditation enjoined in the subsequent
passage (V, 5. 2), 'Now what is true, that is the Āditya, the person
that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye.' But this
also is untenable. For the difference of abode mentioned in the latter
passage (viz. the abode in the sun and in the eye) establishes difference
of vidyā, as already shown under Sū. III, 3, 21. Nor is it possible to
assume that the two meditations comprised in the latter text which have
a character of their own in so far as they view the True as embodied in
syllables, and so on, and which are declared to be connected with a
special result ('he who knows this destroys evil and leaves it'), should
be identical with the one earlier meditation which has an independent
character of its own and a result of its own ('he conquers these
worlds'). Nor can it be said that the declaration of a fruit in 'he
destroys evil and leaves it' refers merely to the fruit (not of the
entire meditation but) of a subordinate part of the meditation; for
there is nothing to prove this. The proof certainly cannot be said to
lie in the fact of the vidyās being one; for this would imply reasoning
in a circle, viz. as follows--it being settled that the vidyās are one,
it follows that the fruit of the former meditation only is the main one,
while the fruits of the two later meditations are subordinate ones; and--
it being settled that those two later fruits are subordinate ones, it
follows that, as thus there is no difference depending on connexion with
fruits, the two later meditations are one with the preceding one.--All
this proves that the two Sūtras can be interpreted only in the way
maintained by us.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'being within.'




38. Wishes and the rest, here and there; (as is known from the abode,
and so on).

We read in the Chāndogya (VIII, I, 1), 'There is that city of Brahman,
and in it the palace, the small lotus, and in it that small ether,' &c.;
and in the Vājasaneyaka, 'He is that great unborn Self who consists of
knowledge,' and so on. A doubt here arises whether the two texts
constitute one meditation or not.--The two meditations are separate, the
Pūrvapakshin maintains; for they have different characters. The
Chāndogya represents as the object of meditation the ether as
distinguished by eight different attributes, viz. freedom from all evil
and the rest; while, according to the Vājasaneyaka, the being to be
meditated on is he who dwells within that ether, and is distinguished by
attributes such as lordship, and so on.--To this we reply that the
meditations are not distinct, since there is no difference of character.
For desires and so on constitute that character 'here and there,' i.e.
in both texts nothing else but Brahman distinguished by attributes, such
as having true wishes, and so on, forms the subject of meditation. This
is known 'from the abode and so on,' i.e. the meditation is recognised
as the same because in both texts Brahman is referred to as abiding in
the heart, being a bridge, and so on. Lordship and the rest, which are
stated in the Vājasaneyaka, are special aspects of the quality of being
capable to realise all one's purposes, which is one of the eight
qualities declared in the Chāndogya, and as such prove that all the
attributes going together with that quality in the Chāndogya are valid
for the Vājasaneyaka also. The character of the two vidyās therefore
does not differ. The connexion with a reward also does not differ, for
it consists in both cases in attaining to Brahman; cp. Ch. Up. VIII, 12,
3 'Having approached the highest light he is manifested in his own form,'
and Bri. Up. V, 4, 24 'He becomes indeed the fearless Brahman.' That,
in the Chāndogya-text, the term _ether_ denotes the highest Brahman, has
already been determined under I, 3, 14. As in the Vājasaneyaka, on the
other hand, he who abides in the ether is recognised as the highest Self,
we infer that by the ether in which he abides must be understood the
ether within the heart, which in the text 'within there is a little
hollow space (sushira)' (Mahānār. Up. XI, 9) is called sushira. The two
meditations are therefore one. Here an objection is raised. It cannot be
maintained that the attributes mentioned in the Chāndogya have to be
combined with those stated in the Vājasaneyaka (lordship, rulership, &c.
), since even the latter are not truly valid for the meditation. For the
immediately preceding passage, 'By the mind it is to be perceived that
there is here no plurality: from death to death goes he who sees here
any plurality; as one only is to be seen that eternal being, not to be
proved by any means of proof,' as well as the subsequent text, 'that
Self is to be described by No, no,' shows that the Brahman to be
meditated upon is to be viewed as devoid of attributes; and from this we
infer that the attributes of lordship and so on, no less than the
qualities of grossness and the like, have to be denied of Brahman. From
this again we infer that in the Chāndogya also the attributes of
satyakāmatva and so on are not meant to be declared as Brahman's true
qualities. All such qualities--as not being real qualities of Brahman--
have therefore to be omitted in meditations aiming at final release.--
This objection the next Sūtra disposes of.




39. On account of emphasis there is non-omission.

Attributes, such as having the power of immediately realising one's
purposes, and so on, which are not by other means known to constitute
attributes of Brahman, and are in the two texts under discussion, as
well as in other texts, emphatically declared to be attributes of
Brahman, as constituting the object of meditations undertaken with a
view to final release, cannot be omitted from those meditations, but
must be comprised within them. In the Chāndogya. the passage, 'Those who
depart from hence, after having cognised the Self and those self-
realising desires, move about at will in all those worlds,' enjoins the
knowledge of Brahman as distinguished by the power of realising its
desires and similar qualities, while the text, 'Those who depart from
here not having cognised the Self, &c., do _not_ move about at will,' &c.,
finds fault with the absence of such knowledge, and in this way
emphasises the importance of the possession of it. In the same way the
repeated declarations as to Brahman's ruling power ('the lord of all,
the king of all beings,' &c.) show that stress is to be laid upon the
quality indicated. It truly cannot be held that Scripture, which in
tender regard to man's welfare is superior to a thousand of parents,
should, deceitfully, give emphatic instruction as to certain qualities--
not known through any other means of knowledge--which fundamentally
would be unreal and hence utterly to be disregarded, and thus throw men
desirous of release, who as it is are utterly confused by the
revolutions of the wheel of Samsāra, into even deeper confusion and
distress. That the text, 'there is not any diversity here; as one only
is to be seen that eternal being,' teaches a unitary view of the world
in so far as everything is an effect of Brahman and thus has Brahman for
its Self, and negatives the view of plurality--established antecedently
to Vedic teaching--as excluding Brahman's being the universal Self, we
have explained before. In the clause 'not so, not so' the so refers back
to the world as established by other means of proof, and the clause thus
declares that Brahman who is the Self of all is different in nature from
the world. This is confirmed by the subsequent passage, 'He is
incomprehensible, for he is not comprehended, he is undecaying,' &c.;
which means--as he is different in nature from what is comprehended by
the other means of proof he is not grasped by those means; as he is
different from what suffers decay he does not decay, and so on. And
analogously, in the Chandogya, the text 'by the old age of the body he
does not age' &c. first establishes Brahman's being different in nature
from everything else, and then declares it to be satyakāma, and so on.--
But, an objection is raised, the text, 'Those who depart from hence,
having cognised the Self and those true desires, move about at will in
all worlds. Thus he who desires the world of the fathers,' &c., really
declares that the knowledge of Brahman as possessing the power of
immediately realising its wishes has for its fruit something lying
within the sphere of transmigratory existence, and from this we infer
that for him who is desirous of release and of reaching Brahman the
object of meditation is not to be found in Brahman in so far as
possessing qualities. The fruit of the highest knowledge is rather
indicated in the passage, 'Having approached the highest light it
manifests itself in its own form'; and hence the power of realising its
wishes and the rest are not to be included in the meditation of him who
wishes to attain to Brahman.--To this objection the next Sūtra replies.




40. In the case of him who has approached (Brahman); just on that
account, this being declared by the text.

When the soul, released from all bonds and manifesting itself in its
true nature, has approached, i.e. attained to Brahman; then just on that
account, i.e. on account of such approach, the text declares it to
possess the power of moving about at will in all worlds. 'Having
approached the highest light he manifests himself in his true form. He
is the highest Person. He moves about there laughing, playing,' &c. This
point will be proved in greater detail in the fourth adhyāya. Meanwhile
the conclusion is that such qualities as satyakāmatva have to be
included in the meditation of him also who is desirous of release; for
the possession of those qualities forms part of the experience of the
released soul itself.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'wishes and the
rest'




41. There is non-restriction of determination, because this is seen; for
there is a separate fruit, viz. non-obstruction.

There are certain meditations connected with elements of sacrificial
actions; as e.g. 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as udgītha.'
These meditations are subordinate elements of the sacrificial acts with
which they connect themselves through the udgītha and so on, in the same
way as the quality of being made of parna wood connects itself with the
sacrifice through the ladle (made of parna wood), and are to be
undertaken on that very account. Moreover the statement referring to
these meditations, viz. 'whatever he does with knowledge, with faith,
with the Upanishad, that becomes more vigorous,' does not allow the
assumption of a special fruit for these meditations (apart from the
fruit of the sacrificial performance); while in the case of the ladle
being made of parna wood the text mentions a special fruit ('he whose
ladle is made of parna wood does not hear an evil sound'). The
meditations in question are therefore necessarily to be connected with
the particular sacrificial performances to which they belong.--This view
the Sūtra refutes, 'There is non-restriction with regard to the
determinations.' By 'determination' we have here to understand the
definite settling of the mind in a certain direction, in other words,
meditation. The meditations on the udgītha and so on are not definitely
connected with the sacrificial performances; 'since that is seen,' i.e.
since the texts themselves declare that there is no such necessary
connexion; cp. the text, 'therefore both perform the sacrificial work,
he who thus knows it (i. e. who possesses the knowledge implied in the
meditations on the sacrifice), as well as he who does not know'--which
declares that he also who does not know the meditations may perform the
work. Were these meditations auxiliary elements of the works, there
could be no such absence of necessary connexion (as declared in this
text). It thus being determined that they are not auxiliary elements, a
special result must be assigned to the injunction of meditation, and
this we find in the greater strength which is imparted to the sacrifice
by the meditation, and which is a result different from the result of
the sacrifice itself. The _greater strength_ of the performance consists
herein, that its result is not impeded, as it might be impeded, by the
result of some other performance of greater force. This result, viz.
absence of obstruction, is something apart from the general result of
the action, such as the reaching of the heavenly world, and so on. This
the Sūtra means when saying, 'for separate is non-obstruction.' As thus
those meditations also which refer to auxiliary members of sacrifices
have their own results, they may or may not be combined with the
sacrifices, according to wish. Their case is like that of the godohana
vessel which, with the view of obtaining a certain special result, may
be used instead of the kamasa.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-
restriction of determination.'




42. Just as in the case of the offerings. This has been explained.

In the daharavidyā (Ch. Up. VIII, 1 ff.) the text, 'those who depart
having known here the Self, and those true desires,' declares at first a
meditation on the small ether, i.e. the highest Self, and separately
therefrom a meditation on its qualities, viz. true desires, and so on.
The doubt here arises whether, in the meditation on those qualities, the
meditation on the highest Self--as that to which the qualities belong--
is to be repeated or not.--It is not to be repeated, the Pūrvapakshin
maintains; for the highest Self is just that which is constituted by the
qualities--freedom from all evil, and so on--and as that Self so
constituted can be comprised in one meditation, there is no need of
repeating the meditation on account of the qualities.--This view the
Sūtra sets aside. The meditation has to be repeated. The highest Self
indeed is that being to which alone freedom from evil and the other
qualities belong, and it forms the object of the first meditation; yet
there is a difference between it as viewed in its essential being and as
viewed as possessing those qualities; and moreover, the clause 'free
from evil, from old age,' &c. enjoins a meditation on the Self as
possessing those qualities. It is therefore first to be meditated on in
its essential nature, and then there takes place a repetition of the
meditation on it in order to bring in those special qualities. The case
is analogous to that of 'the offerings.' There is a text 'He is to offer
a purodāsa on eleven potsherds to Indra the ruler, to Indra the supreme
ruler, to Indra the self-ruler.' This injunction refers to one and the
same Indra, possessing the qualities of rulership and so on; but as,
through connexion with those several qualities, the aspects of Indra
differ, the oblation of the purodāsa has to be repeated. This is
declared in the Sānkarshana, 'The divinities are different on account of
separation.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'offerings.'




43. On account of the plurality of indicatory marks; for that (proof) is
stronger. This also is declared (in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā).

The Taittirīyaka contains another daharavidyā, 'The thousand-headed god,
the all-eyed one,' &c. (Mahānār. Up. XI). Here the doubt arises whether
this vidyā, as being one with the previously introduced vidyā, states
qualities to be included in the meditation enjoined in that vidyā, or
qualities to be included in the meditations on the highest Self as
enjoined in all the Vedānta-texts.--The former is the case, the
Pūrvapakshin holds, on account of the leading subject-matter. For in the
preceding section (X) the meditation on the small ether is introduced as
the subject-matter. 'There is the small lotus placed in the middle of
the town (of the body), free from all evil, the abode of the Highest;
within that there is a small space, free from sorrow--what is within
that should be meditated upon' (Mahānār. Up. X, 23). Now, as the lotus
of the heart is mentioned only in section X, the 'Nārāyana-section'
('the heart resembling the bud of a lotus, with its point turned
downwards,' XI, 6), we conclude that that section also is concerned with
the object of meditation to which the daharavidyā refers.--Against this
view the Sūtra declares itself, 'on account of the majority of
indicatory marks'; i.e. there are in the text several marks proving that
that section is meant to declare characteristics of that which
constitutes the object of meditation in all meditations on the highest
being. For that being which in those meditations is denoted as the
Imperishable, Siva, Sambhu. the highest Brahman, the highest light, the
highest entity, the highest Self, and so on, is here referred to by the
same names, and then declared to be Nārāyana. There are thus several
indications to prove that Nārāyana is none other than that which is the
object of meditation in all meditations on the Highest, viz. Brahman,
which has bliss and the rest for its qualities. By 'linga' (inferential
mark) we here understand clauses (vākya) which contain a specific
indication; for such clauses have, according to the Pūrva Mīmāmsā,
greater proving power than leading subject-matter (prakarana). The
argumentation that the clause 'the heart resembling the bud of a lotus
flower,' &c., proves that section to stand in a dependent relation to
the daharavidyā, is without force; for it being proved by a stronger
argument that the section refers to that which is the object of
meditation in all meditations, the clause mentioned may also be taken as
declaring that in the daharavidyā also the object of meditation is
Nārāyana. Nor must it be thought that the accusatives with which the
section begins (sahasrasirsham, &c.) are to be connected with the
'meditating' enjoined in the previous section; for the 'meditating' is
there enjoined by a gerundive form ('tasmin yad antas tad upāsitavyam'),
and with this the subsequent accusatives cannot be construed. Moreover,
the subsequent clause ('all this is Nārāyana,' &c., where the nominative
case is used) shows that those accusatives are to be taken in the sense
of nominatives.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the plurality of
indicatory marks.'




44. There is option with regard to what precedes (i.e. the altar made of
bricks) on account of subject-matter, and hence there is action; as in
the case of the mānasa cup.

In the Vājasaneyaka, in the Agnirahasya chapter, there are references to
certain altars built of mind, 'built of mind, built of speech,' &c. The
doubt here arises whether those structures of mind, and so on, which
metaphorically are called fire-altars, should be considered as being of
the nature of action, on account of their connexion with a performance
which itself is of the nature of action; or merely of the nature of
meditation, as being connected with an activity of the nature of
meditation. The Sūtra maintains the former view. Since those things
'built of mind, and so on,' are, through being _built_ (or _piled _up),
constituted as fire-altars, they demand a performance with which to
connect themselves; and as in immediate proximity to them no performance
is enjoined, and as the general subject-matter of the section is the
fire-altar built of bricks--introduced by means of the clause 'Non-being
this was in the beginning'---which is invariably connected with a
performance of the nature of outward action, viz. a certain sacrificial
performance--we conclude that the altars built of mind, &c., which the
text mentions in connexion with the same subject-matter, are themselves
of the nature of action, and as such can be used as alternatives for the
altar built of bricks. [FOOTNOTE 668:1]. An analogous case is presented
by the so-called _mental_ cup. On the tenth, so-called avivākya, day of
the Soma sacrifice extending over twelve days, there takes place the
mental offering of a Soma cup, all the rites connected with which are
rehearsed in imagination only; the offering of that cup is thus really
of the nature of thought only, but as it forms an auxiliary element in
an actual outward sacrificial performance it itself assumes the
character of an action.

[FOOTNOTE 668:1. So that for the actual outward construction of a brick
altar there may optionally be substituted the merely mental construction
of an imaginary altar.]




45. And on account of the transfer.

That the altar built of thought is an optional substitute for the altar
built of bricks, and of the nature of an action, appears therefrom also
that the clause 'of these each one is as great as that previous one,'
explicitly transfers to the altars of mind, and so on, the powers of the
previous altar made of bricks. All those altars thus having equal
effects there is choice between them. The altars of mind, and so on,
therefore are auxiliary members of the sacrificial performance which
they help to accomplish, and hence themselves of the nature of action.--
Against this view the next Sūtra declares itself.




46. But it is a meditation only, on account of assertion and what is
seen.

The altars built of mind, and so on, are not of the nature of action,
but of meditation only, i.e. they belong to a performance which is of
the nature of meditation only. For this is what the text asserts, viz.
in the clauses 'they are built of knowledge only,' and 'by knowledge
they are built for him who thus knows.' As the energies of mind, speech,
sight, and so on, cannot be piled up like bricks, it is indeed a matter
of course that the so-called altars constructed of mind, and so on, can
be mental constructions only; but the text in addition specially
confirms this by declaring that those altars are elements in an activity
of purely intellectual character, and hence themselves mere creatures of
the intellect. Moreover there is seen in the text a performance
consisting of thought only to which those fires stand in a subsidiary
relation, 'by the mind they were established on hearths, by the mind
they were built up, by the mind the Soma cups were drawn thereat; by the
mind they chanted, and by the mind they recited; whatever rite is
performed at the sacrifice, whatever sacrificial rite there is, that, as
consisting of mind, was performed by the mind only, on those (fire-
altars) composed of mind, built up of mind.' From this declaration, that
whatever sacrificial rite is actually performed in the case of fire-
altars built of bricks is performed mentally only in the case of altars
built of mind, it follows that the entire performance is a mental one
only, i.e. an act of meditation.--But, an objection is raised, as the
entire passus regarding the altars of mind does not contain any word of
injunctive power, and as the text states no special result (from which
it appears to follow that the passus does not enjoin a new independent
performance), we must, on the strength of the fact that the leading
subject-matter is an actual sacrificial performance as suggested by the
altars built of brick, give up the idea that the altars built of mind,
&c., are mental only because connected with a performance of merely
mental nature.--This objection the next Sūtra refutes.




47. And on account of the greater strength of direct statement, and so
on, there is no refutation.

The weaker means of proof, constituted by so-called leading subject-
matter, cannot refute what is established by three stronger means of
proof--direct statement, inferential mark, and syntactical connexion--
viz. that there is an independent purely mental performance, and that
the altars made of mind are parts of the latter. The direct statement is
contained in the following passage, 'Those fire-altars indeed are built
of knowledge,'--which is further explained in the subsequent passage,
'by knowledge alone these altars are built for him who knows this'--the
sense of which is: the structures of mind, and so on, are built in
connexion with a performance which consists of knowledge (i.e.
meditation).--The inferential mark is contained in the passage, 'For him
all beings at all times build them, even while he is asleep.' And the
syntactical connexion (vākya) consists in the connexion of the two words
evamvide (for him who knows this), and kinvanti (they build)--the sense
being: for him who accomplishes the performance consisting of knowledge
all beings at all times build those altars. The proving power of the
passage above referred to as containing an indicatory mark (linga) lies
therein that a construction mentally performed at all times by all
beings cannot possibly connect itself with a sacrificial performance
through the brick-altar, which is constructed by certain definite agents
and on certain definite occasions only, and must therefore be an element
in a mental performance, i.e. a meditation.--The next Sūtra disposes of
the objection that the text cannot possibly mean to enjoin a new mental
performance, apart from the actual performance, because it contains no
word of injunctive force and does not mention a special result.




48. On account of connexions and the rest, as in the case of the
separateness of other cognitions. And this is seen (elsewhere also); as
declared (in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā).

That the text enjoins a meditative performance different from the actual
performance of which the brick-altar is a constituent element, follows
from the reasons proving separation, viz. _the connexions_. i.e. the
things connected with the sacrifice, such as the Soma cups, the hymns,
the recitations, and so on. What is meant is that the special mention of
the cups, and so on, made in the passage 'by the mind the Soma cups were
drawn thereat,' proves the difference of the performance.--The 'and the
rest' of the Sūtra comprises the previously stated arguments, viz.
direct statement, and so on. 'As other meditations,' i.e. the case is
analogous to that of other meditations such as the meditation on the
small ether within the heart, which are likewise proved by textual
statement, and so on, to be different and separate from actual outward
sacrificial performances.--The existence of a separate meditative act
having thus been ascertained, the requisite injunction has to be
construed on the basis of the text as it stands.

Such construction of injunctions on the basis of texts of arthavāda
character is seen in other places also; the matter is discussed in Pū.
Mī. Sūtras III, 5, 21.--The result of the meditative performance follows
from the passage 'of these (altars made of mind, and so on) each is as
great as that former one (i.e. the altar built of bricks)'--for this
implies that the same result which the brick-altar accomplishes through
the sacrifice of which it forms an element is also attained through the
altars made of mind, and so on, through the meditations of which they
form parts.--The next Sūtra disposes of the argumentation that, as this
formal transfer of the result of the brick-altar to the altars built of
mind, and so on, shows the latter to possess the same virtues as the
former, we are bound to conclude that they also form constituent
elements of an actual (not merely meditative) performance.




49. Not so, on account of this being observed on account of similarity
also; as in the case of Death; for (the person in yonder orb) does not
occupy the worlds (of Death).

From a transfer or assimilation of this kind it does not necessarily
follow that things of different operation are equal, and that hence
those altars of mind, and so on, must connect themselves with an actual
outward performance. For it is observed that such assimilation rests
sometimes on a special point of resemblance only; so in the text, 'The
person in yonder orb is Death indeed,'--where the feature of resemblance
is the destroying power of the two; for the person within yonder orb
does certainly not occupy the same worlds, i.e. the same place as Death.
Analogously, in the case under discussion, the fact that the altars made
of mind are treated as, in a certain respect, equivalent to the altar
built of bricks, does not authorise us to connect those altars with the
sacrificial performance to which the altar of bricks belongs. When the
text says that the altar made of mind is as great as the altar of bricks,
this only means that the same result which is attained through the brick-
altar in connexion with its own sacrificial performance is also attained
through the altar of mind in connexion with the meditational performance
into which it enters.




50. And by a subsequent (Brāhmana) also the 'being of such a kind' of
the word (is proved). But the connexion is on account of plurality.

The subsequent Brāhmana (Sat. Br. X, 5, 4) also proves that the text
treating of the altars made of mind, and so on, enjoins a meditation
only. For that Brāhmana (which begins 'This brick-built fire-altar is
this world; the waters are its enclosing-stones,' &c.) declares further
on 'whosoever knows this thus comes to be that whole Agni who is the
space-filler,' and from this it appears that what is enjoined there is a
meditation with a special result of its own. And further on (X, 6) there
is another meditation enjoined, viz. one on Vaisvānara. All this shows
that the Agnirahasya book (Sat. Br. X) is not solely concerned with the
injunction of outward sacrificial acts.--But what then is the reason
that such matters as the mental (meditative) construction of fire-altars
which ought to be included in the Brihad-āranyaka are included in the
Agnirahasya?--'That connexion is on account of plurality,' i.e. the
altars made of mind, and so on, are, in the sacred text, dealt with in
proximity to the real altar made of bricks, because so many details of
the latter are mentally to be accomplished in the meditation.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'option with the previous one.'




51. Some, on account of the existence of a Self within a body.

In all meditations on the highest Self the nature of the meditating
subject has to be ascertained no less than the nature of the object of
meditation and of the mode of meditation. The question then arises
whether the meditating Self is to be viewed as the knowing, doing, and
enjoying Self, subject to transmigration; or as that Self which
Prajāpati describes (Ch. Up. VIII, 1), viz. a Self free from all sin and
imperfection.--Some hold the former view, on the ground that the
meditating Self is within a body. For as long as the Self dwells within
a body, it _is_ a knower, doer, enjoyer, and so on, and it can bring
about the result of its meditation only as viewed under that aspect. A
person who, desirous of the heavenly world or a similar result, enters
on some sacrificial action may, after he has reached that result,
possess characteristics different from those of a knowing, doing, and
enjoying subject, but those characteristics cannot be attributed to him
as long as he is in the state of having to bring about the means of
accomplishing those ends; in the latter state he must be viewed as an
ordinary agent, and there it would be of no use to view him as something
different. And the same holds equally good with regard to a person
engaged in meditation.--But, an objection is raised, the text 'as the
thought of a man is in this world, so he will be when he has departed
this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14, 1) _does_ declare a difference (between the
agent engaged in sacrificial action, and the meditating subject), and
from this it follows that the meditating Self is to be conceived as
having a nature free from all evil, and so on.--Not so, the Pūrvapakshin
replies; for the clause, 'howsoever they meditate on him,' proves that
that text refers to the equality of the object meditated upon (not of
the meditating subject).--To this the next Sūtra replies.




52. But this is not so, (but rather) difference; since it is of the
being of that; as in the case of intuition.

It is not true that the meditating subject must be conceived as having
the ordinary characteristics of knowing, acting, &c.; it rather
possesses those characteristic properties--freedom from evil, and so on--
which distinguish the state of Release from the Samsāra state. At the
time of meditation the Self of the devotee is of exactly the same nature
as the released Self. 'For it is of the being of that,' i.e. it attains
the nature of that--as proved by the texts, 'as the thought of a man is
in this world, so he will be when he has departed,' and 'howsoever he
meditate on him, such he becomes himself.' Nor can it be maintained that
these texts refer only to meditation on the highest Self (without
declaring anything as to the personal Self of the devotee); for the
personal Self constitutes the body of Brahman which is the object of
meditation, and hence itself falls under the category of object of
meditation. The character of such meditation, therefore, is that it is a
meditation on the highest Self as having for its body the individual
Self, distinguished by freedom from evil and the other qualities
mentioned in the teaching of Prajāpati. And hence the individual Self is,
in such meditation, to be conceived (not as the ordinary Self, but)
under that form which it has to attain (i.e. the pure form which belongs
to it in the state of Release). 'As in the case of intuition'--i.e. as
in the case of intuition of Brahman. As the intuition of Brahman has for
its object the essential nature of Brahman, so the intuition of the
individual soul also has for its object its permanent essential nature.
In the case of sacrificial works the conception of the true nature of
the Self forms an auxiliary factor. An injunction such as 'Let him who
is desirous of the heavenly world sacrifice,' enjoins the performance of
the sacrifice to the end of a certain result being reached; while the
conception of the Self as possessing characteristics such as being a
knowing subject, and so on--which are separate from the body--has the
function of proving its qualification for works meant to effect results
which will come about at some future time. So much only (i.e. the mere
cognition of the Self as something different from the body) is required
for works (as distinguished from meditations).--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'being in the body.'




53. But those (meditations) which are connected with members (of
sacrifices) are not (restricted) to (particular) sākhās, but rather
(belong) to all sākhās.

There are certain meditations connected with certain constituent
elements of sacrifices-as e.g. 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om
(as) the Udgītha '(Ch. Up. I, 1, 1); 'Let a man meditate on the fivefold
Saman as the five worlds' (Ch. Up. II, 2, 1), &c. The question here
arises whether those meditations are restricted to the members of those
sākhās in whose texts they are mentioned; or to be connected with the
Udgītha, and so on, in all sākhās. There is here a legitimate ground for
doubt, in so far as, although the general agreement of all Vedānta-texts
is established, the Udgītha, and so on, are different in each Veda since
the accents differ in the different Vedas--The Pūrvapakshin declares
that those meditations are limited each to its particular sākhā; for, he
says, the injunction 'Let him meditate on the Udgītha' does indeed,
verbally, refer to the Udgītha in general; but as what stands nearest to
this injunction is the special Udgītha of the sākhā, in whose text this
injunction occurs, and which shares the peculiarities of accent
characteristic of that sākhā, we decide that the meditation is enjoined
on members of that sākhā only.--The Sūtra sets this opinion aside. The
injunction of meditations of this type is valid for all sākhās, since
the text expressly connects them with the Udgītha in general. They
therefore hold good wherever there is an Udgītha. The individual
Udgīthas of the several sākhās are indeed distinguished by different
accentuation; but the general statement, 'Let him meditate on the
Udgītha.' suggests to the mind not any particular Udgītha, but _the_
Udgītha in general, and hence there is no reason to restrict the
meditation to a particular sākhā. From the principle moreover that all
sākhās teach the same doctrine, it follows that the sacrifice enjoined
in the different sākhās is one only; and hence there is no reason to
hold that the Udgītha suggested by the injunction of the meditation is a
particular one. For the Udgītha is only an element in the sacrifice, and
the sacrifice is one and the same. The meditations are not therefore
limited to particular sākhās.




54. Or there is no contradiction as in the case of mantras and the rest.

The 'or' here has the sense of 'and.' The 'and the rest' comprises
generic characteristics, qualities, number, similarity, order of
succession, substances, and actions. As there is nothing contrary to
reason in mantras and the rest, although mentioned in the text of one
sākhā only, finding, on the basis of such means of proof as direct
statement, and so on, their application in all sākhās, since the
sacrifice to which they belong is one and the same in all sākhās; so
there is likewise no contradiction in the meditations under discussion
being undertaken by members of all sākhās.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'what is connected with constituent elements of the
sacrifice.'




55. There is pre-eminence of plenitude, as in the case of the sacrifice;
for thus Scripture shows.

The sacred text (Ch. Up. V, 12 ff.) enjoins a meditation on Vaisvānara,
the object of which is the highest Self, as having for its body the
entire threefold world, and for its limbs the heavenly world, the sun,
the wind, and so on. The doubt here arises whether separate meditations
have to be performed on the highest Being in its separate aspects, or in
its aggregate as well as in its distributed aspect, or in its aggregate
aspect only.--In its separate aspects, the Pūrvapakshin maintains; since
at the outset a meditation of that kind is declared. For on the Rishis
in succession telling Asvapati the objects of their meditation, viz. the
sky, the sun, and so on, Asvapati explains to them that these
meditations refer to the head, eye, and so on, of the highest Being, and
mentions for each of these meditations a special fruit. And the
concluding explanation 'he who worships Vaisvānara as a span long, &c.,'
is merely meant to gather up into one, as it were, the preceding
meditations on the parts of Vaisvānara.--Another Pūrvapakshin holds that
this very concluding passage enjoins a further meditation on Vaisvānara
in his collective aspect, in addition to the previously enjoined
meditations on his limbs; for that passage states a separate result, 'he
eats food in all worlds,' &c. Nor does this destroy the unity of the
whole section. The case is analogous to that of the meditation on
'plenitude' (bhūman; Ch. Up. VII, 23). There, in the beginning,
separate meditations are enjoined on name, and so on, with special
results of their own; and after that a meditation is enjoined on bhūman,
with a result of its own, 'He becomes a Self-ruler,' &c. The entire
section really refers to the meditation on bhūman; but all the same
there are admitted subordinate meditations on name, and so on, and a
special result for each.--These views are set aside by the Sūtra, 'There
is pre-eminence of plenitude,' i.e. there is reason to assume that
Vaisvānara in his fulness, i.e. in his collective aspect, is meant;
since we apprehend unity of the entire section. From the beginning of
the section it is manifest that what the Rishis desire to know is the
Vaisānara Self; it is that Self which Asvapati expounds to them as
having the Universe for his body, and in agreement therewith the last
clause of his teaching intimates that the intuition of Brahman (which is
none other than the Vaisvānara Self)--which is there characterised as
the food of all worlds, all beings, all Selfs--is the fruit of the
meditation on Vaisvānara. This summing up proves the whole section to
deal with the same subject. And on the basis of this knowledge we
determine that what the text says as to meditations on the separate
members of the Vaisānara Self and their special results is merely of the
nature of explanatory comment (anuvāda) on parts of the meditation on
the collective Self.--This decision is arrived at as in the case of the
sacrifice. For to the injunction of certain sacrifices--such as 'Let a
man, on the birth of a son, offer a cake on twelve potsherds to
Vaisvānara'--the text similarly adds remarks on parts of the oblation,
'there is an oblation on eight potsherds,' and so on.--The meditation
therefore has to be performed on the entire Vaisvānara Self only, not on
its parts. This, moreover, Scripture itself intimates, in so far, namely,
as declaring the evil consequences of meditation on parts of the Self
only, 'your head would have fallen off if you had not come to me'; 'you
would have become blind,' and so on. This also shows that the reference
to the text enjoining meditations on name, &c., proves nothing as to our
passage. For there the text says nothing as to disadvantages connected
with those special meditations; it only says that the meditation on
plenitude (bhūman) has a more excellent result. The section, therefore,
although really concerned with enjoining the meditation on the bhūman,
at the same time means to declare that the special meditations also are
fruitful; otherwise the meditation on the bhūman could not be
recommended, for the reason that it has a more excellent result than the
preceding meditations.--The conclusion, therefore, is that the text
enjoins a meditation on the collective Vaisvānara Self only.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the pre-eminence of plenitude.'




56. (The meditations are) separate, on account of the difference of
words, and so on.

The instances coming under this head of discussion are all those
meditations on Brahman which have for their only result final Release,
which consists in attaining to Brahman--such as the meditation on that
which is, the meditation on the bhūman, the meditation on the small
space within the heart, the Upakosala meditation, the Sāndilya
meditation, the meditation on Vaisvānara, the meditation on the Self of
bliss, the meditation on the Imperishable, and others--whether they be
recorded in one sākhā only or in several sākhās. To a different category
belong those meditations which have a special object such as Prāna, and
a special result.--The doubt here arises whether the meditations of the
former class are all to be considered as identical, or as separate--The
Pūrvapakshin holds that they are all one; for, he says, they all have
one and the same object of meditation, viz. Brahman. For the nature of
all cognition depends on the object cognised; and the nature of the
meditations thus being one, the meditations themselves are one.--This
view the Sūtra controverts. The meditations are different, on account of
the difference of terms and the rest. The 'and the rest' comprises
repetition (abhyāsa), number (samkhyā), quality (guna), subject-matter
(prakriyā), and name (nāmadheya; cp. Pū. Mī. Sū. II, 2, 1 ff.). We meet
in those meditations with difference of connexion, expressing itself in
difference of words, and so on; which causes difference on the part of
the meditations enjoined. The terms enjoining meditation, 'he knows,'
'he is to meditate' (veda; upāsīta), and so on, do indeed all of them
denote a certain continuity of cognition, and all these cognitions have
for their object Brahman only, but all the same those cognitions differ
in so far as they have for their object Brahman, as variously qualified
by special characteristics mentioned in the meditation; in one
meditation he is spoken of as the sole cause of the world, in another as
free from all evil, and so on. We therefore arrive at the decision that
clauses which describe special forms of meditation having for their
result the attainment to Brahman, and are complete in themselves, convey
the idea of separate independent meditations, and thus effect separation
of the vidyās. This entire question was indeed already decided in the
Pūrva Mimāmsa-sūtras (II, 2, 1), but it is here argued again to the end
of dispelling the mistaken notion that the Vedānta-texts aim at
knowledge only, and not at the injunction of activities such as
meditation. The meditations, therefore, are separate ones.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'difference of words and the rest.'




57. Option, on account of the non-difference of result.

It has been proved that the meditation on that which truly is, the
meditation on the small ether within the heart, and so on--all of which
have for their result the attainment to Brahman--are separate
meditations. The question now arises whether all these meditations
should be combined by each meditating devotee, on account of such
combination being useful to him; or whether, in the absence of any use
of such combination, they should be undertaken optionally.--They may be
combined, the Pūrvapakshin holds; since it is observed that different
scriptural matters are combined even when having one and the same result.
The Agnihotra, the Daisapūrnamāsa oblation, and other sacrifices, all of
them have one and the same result, viz. the possession of the heavenly
world; nevertheless, one and the same agent performs them all, with a
view to the greater fulness of the heavenly bliss aimed at. So the
different meditations on Brahman also may be cumulated with a view to
greater fulness of intuition of Brahman.--This view the Sūtra rejects.
Option only between the several meditations is possible, on account of
the non-difference of result. For to all meditations on Brahman alike
Scripture assigns one and the same result, viz. intuitive knowledge of
Brahman, which is of the nature of supreme, unsurpassable bliss. 'He who
knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1), &c. The
intuitive knowledge of Brahman constitutes supreme, unsurpassable bliss;
and if such intuition may be reached through one meditation, of what use
could other meditations be? The heavenly world is something limited in
respect of place, time, and essential nature, and hence a person
desirous of attaining to it may cumulate works in order to take
possession of it to a greater extent, and so on. But an analogous
proceeding cannot be resorted to with regard to Brahman, which is
unlimited in every sense. All meditations on Brahman tend to dispel
Nescience, which stands in the way of the intuition of Brahman, and thus
equally have for their result the attaining to Brahman; and hence there
is option between them. In the case, on the other hand, of those
meditations which aim at other results than Brahman, there may either be
choice between the several meditations, or they may be cumulated--as one
may also do in the case of sacrifices aiming at the attainment of the
heavenly world;--for as those results are not of an infinite nature one
may aim at realising them in a higher degree. This the next Sūtra
declares.




58. But meditations aiming at objects of desire may, according to one's
liking, be cumulated or not; on account of the absence of the former
reason.

The last clause means--on account of their results not being of an
infinite nature.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'option.'




59. They belong to the constituent members, as the bases.

A doubt arises whether meditations such as the one enjoined in the text,
'Let him meditate on the syllable Om as the Udgītha,' which are
connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice such as the Udgītha,
contribute towards the accomplishment of the sacrifice, and hence must
be performed at the sacrifice as part of it; or whether they, like the
godohana vessel, benefit the agent apart from the sacrifice, and
therefore may be undertaken according to desire.--But has it not been
already decided under III, 3, 42 that those meditations are generally
beneficial to man, and not therefore restricted to the sacrifices?--True;
it is just for the purpose of further confirming that conclusion that
objections are now raised against it on the ground of some inferential
marks (linga) and reasoning. For there it was maintained on the strength
of the text 'therefore he does both' that those meditations have results
independent of the sacrifice. But there are several reasons favouring
the view that those meditations must be connected with the sacrifices as
subordinate members, just as the Udgītha and the rest to which the
meditations refer.

Their case is by no means analogous to that of the godohana vessel, for,
while in the case of the latter, the text expressly declares the
existence of a special result, 'For him who is desirous of cattle he is
to bring water in a godohana,' the texts enjoining those meditations do
not state special results for them. For clauses such as 'he is to
meditate on the Udgītha' intimate only that the Udgītha is connected
with the meditation; while their connexion with certain results is known
from other clauses, such as 'whatever he does with knowledge, with faith,
with the Upanishad, that is more vigorous' (according to which the
result of such meditations is only to strengthen the result of the
sacrifices). And when a meditation of this kind has, on the ground of
its connexion with the Udgītha or the like--which themselves are
invariably connected with sacrifices--been cognised to form an element
of a sacrifice, some other passage which may declare a fruit for that
meditation can only be taken as an arthavāda; just as the passage which
declares that he whose sacrificial ladle is made of parna wood does not
hear an evil sound. In the same way, therefore, as the Udgītha and so on,
which are the bases of those meditations, are to be employed only as
constituent parts of the sacrifices, so the meditations also connected
with those constituent parts are themselves to be employed as
constituent parts of the sacrifices only.




60. And on account of injunction.

The above conclusion is further confirmed by the fact of injunction, i.e.
thereby that clauses such as 'he is to meditate on the Udgītha' enjoin
the meditation as standing to the Udgītha in the relation of a
subordinate member. Injunctions of this kind differ from injunctions
such as 'he is to bring water in the godohana vessel for him who desires
cattle'; for the latter state a special qualification on the part of him
who performs the action, while the former do not, and hence cannot claim
independence.




61. On account of rectification.

The text 'from the seat of the Hotri he sets right the wrong Udgīha'
shows that the meditation is necessarily required for the purpose of
correcting whatever mistake may be made in the Udgītha. This also proves
that the meditation is an integral part of the sacrificial performance.




62. And on account of the declaration of a quality being common (to all
the Vedas).

The text 'By means of that syllable the threefold knowledge proceeds.
With _Om_ the Adhvaryu gives orders, with _Om_ the Hotri recites, with _Om_
the Udgātri sings,' which declares the pranava--which is a 'quality' of
the meditation, in so far as it is its basis--to be common to the three
Vedas, further shows that the meditation has to be employed in connexion
with the sacrifice. For the meditation is connected with the Udgītha,
and the Udgitha is an integral part of all sacrificial performances
whatever.

Of the primā facie view thus far set forth the next Sūtra disposes.




63. Rather not, as the text does not declare their going together.

It is not true that the meditations on the Udgītha and the rest are
bound to the sacrifices in the same way as the Udgītha, and so on,
themselves are; for Scripture does not declare that they go together
with, i.e. are subordinate constituents of the Udgītha, and so on. The
clause 'Let him meditate on the Udgītha' does not indeed itself state
another qualification on the part of the agent (i.e. does not state that
the agent in entering on the meditation is prompted by a motive other
than the one prompting the sacrifice); but the subsequent clause,
'whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the Upanishad, that
becomes more vigorous,' intimates that knowledge is the means to render
the sacrificial work more efficacious, and from this it follows that the
meditation is enjoined as a means towards effecting a result other than
the result of the sacrifice. And hence the meditation cannot be viewed
as a subordinate member of the Udgītha, which itself is a subordinate
member of the sacrifice. It rather has the Udgītha for its basis only.
He only indeed who is qualified for the sacrifice is qualified for the
meditation, since the latter aims at greater efficaciousness of the
sacrifice; but this does not imply that the meditation necessarily goes
with the sacrifice. By the greater vigour of the sacrifice is meant its
non-obstruction by some other sacrificial work of greater strength, its
producing its effect without any delay.--The case of a statement such as
'he whose ladle is of parna wood hears no evil sound' is different.
There the text does not declare that the quality of consisting of parna
wood is the direct means of bringing about the result of no evil sound
being heard; hence there is no valid reason why that quality should not
be subordinate to the ladle, which itself is subordinate to the
sacrifice; and as it is not legitimate to assume for the mere
subordinate constituents of a sacrifice special fruits (other than the
general fruit of the sacrifice), the declaration as to no evil sound
being heard is to be viewed as a mere arthavāda (i.e. a mere additional
statement meant further to glorify the result of the sacrifice--of which
the ladle made of parna wood is a subordinate instrument).




64. And because (Scripture) shows it.

A scriptural text, moreover, shows that the meditation is necessary for,
and restricted to, the sacrificial performance. For the text 'A Brahman
priest who knows this saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the
officiating priests'--which declares that all priests are saved through
the knowledge of the Brahman--has sense only on the understanding that
that knowledge is not restricted to the Udjātri, and so on (i.e. not to
those priests who are engaged in carrying out the details of the
sacrifices which are the 'bases' of the meditations).--The conclusion,
therefore, is that those meditations are not restricted to the
sacrifices, subordinate members of which serve as their 'bases.'--This
terminates the adhikarana of 'like the bases.'




FOURTH PĀDA.

1. The benefit to man results from thence, on account of scriptural
statement; thus Bādarāyana thinks.

We have concluded the investigation into the oneness or diverseness of
meditations--the result of which is to indicate in which cases the
special points mentioned in several meditations have to be combined, and
in which not. A further point now to be investigated is whether that
advantage to the meditating devotee, which is held to accrue to him from
the meditation, results from the meditation directly, or from works of
which the meditations are subordinate members.--The Reverend Bādarāyana
holds the former view. The benefit to man results from thence, i.e. from
the meditation, because Scripture declares this to be so. 'He who knows
Brahman reaches the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'I know that great
Person of sun-like lustre beyond the darkness. A man who knows him truly
passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'As
the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and their
form, thus a man who possesses knowledge, freed from name and form, goes
to the divine Person who is greater than the great' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8).--
Against this view the Pūrvapakshin raises an objection.




2. On account of (the Self) standing in a complementary relation, they
are arthavādas, as in other cases; thus Jaimini opines.

What has been said as to Scripture intimating that a beneficial result
is realised through the meditations by themselves is untenable. For
texts such as 'he who knows Brahman reaches the Highest' do not teach
that the highest aim of man is attained through knowledge; their purport
rather is to inculcate knowledge of Truth on the part of a Self which is
the agent in works prescribed. Knowledge, therefore, stands in a
complementary relation to sacrificial works, in so far as it imparts to
the acting Self a certain mystic purification; and the texts which
declare special results of knowledge, therefore, must be taken as mere
arthavādas. 'As in the case of other things; so Jaimini thinks,' i.e. as
Jaimini holds that in the case of substances, qualities, and so on, the
scriptural declaration of results is of the nature of arthavāda.--But it
has been shown before that the Vedānta-texts represent as the object to
be attained, by those desirous of Release, on the basis of the knowledge
imparted by them, something different from the individual Self engaged
in action; cp. on this point Sū. I, 1, 15; I, 3, 5; I, 2, 3; I, 3, 18.
And Sū. II, 1, 22 and others have refuted the view that Brahman is to be
considered as non-different from the personal soul, because in texts
such as 'thou art that' it is exhibited in co-ordination with the latter.
And other Sūtras have proved that Brahman must, on the basis of numerous
scriptural texts, be recognised as the inner Self of all things material
and immaterial. How then can it be said that the Vedānta-texts merely
mean to give instruction as to the true nature of the active individual
soul, and that hence all meditation is merely subservient to sacrificial
works?--On the strength of numerous inferential marks, the Pūrvapakshin
replies, which prove that in the Vedānta-texts all meditation is really
viewed as subordinate to knowledge, and of the declarations of co-
ordination of Brahman and the individual soul (which must be taken to
imply that the two are essentially of the same nature), we cannot help
forming the conclusion that the real purport of the Vedānta-texts is to
tell us of the true nature of the individual soul in so far as different
from its body.--But, again it is objected, the agent is connected no
less with ordinary worldly works than with works enjoined by the Veda,
and hence is not invariably connected with sacrifices (i.e. works of the
latter type); it cannot, therefore, be maintained that meditations on
the part of the agent necessarily connect themselves with sacrifices in
so far as they effect a purification of the sacrificer's mind!--There is
a difference, the Pūrvapakshin rejoins. Worldly works can proceed also
if the agent is non-different from the body; while an agent is qualified
for sacred works only in so far as he is different from the body, and of
an eternal non-changing nature. Meditations, therefore, properly connect
themselves with sacrifices, in so far as they teach that the agent
really is of that latter nature. We thus adhere to the conclusion that
meditations are constituents of sacrificial actions, and hence are of no
advantage by themselves.--But what then are those inferential marks
which, as you say, fully prove that the Vedānta-texts aim at setting
forth the nature of the individual soul?--To this the next Sūtra replies.




3. On account of (such) conduct being seen.

It is seen, viz in Scripture, that those who knew Brahman busied
themselves chiefly with sacrifices.--Asvapati Kaikeya had a deep
knowledge of the Self; but when three Rishis had come to him to receive
instruction regarding the Self, he told them 'I am about, to perform a
sacrifice, Sirs' (Ch. Up. V, II). Similarly we learn from Smriti that
Janaka and other princes deeply versed in the knowledge of Brahman
applied themselves to sacrificial works, 'By works only Janaka and
others attained to perfection'; 'He also, well founded in knowledge,
offered many sacrifices.' And this fact--that those who know Brahman
apply themselves to works chiefly--shows that knowledge (or meditation)
has no independent value, but serves to set forth the true nature of the
active Self, and thus is subordinate to work.--An even more direct proof
is set forth in the next Sūtra.




4. On account of direct scriptural statement.

Scripture itself directly declares knowledge to be subordinate to works,
'whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the Upanishad, that
is more vigorous'. Nor can it be said that this text refers, on the
ground of leading subject-matter (prakarana), to the Udgītha only; for
direct scriptural statement (suti) is stronger than subject-matter, and
the words 'whatever he does with knowledge' clearly refer to knowledge
in general.




5. On account of the taking hold together.

The text 'then both knowledge and work take hold of him' (Bri. Up. IV, 4,
2) shows that knowledge and work go together, and this going together is
possible only if, in the manner stated, knowledge is subordinate to work.




6. On account of injunction for such a one.

That knowledge is subordinate to works follows therefrom also that works
are enjoined on him only who possesses knowledge. For texts such as 'He
who has learnt the Veda from a family of teachers,' &c. (Ch. Up. VIII,
15), enjoin works on him only who has mastered the sacred texts so as
fully to understand their meaning--for this is the sense of the term
'learning' (adhyayana). Hence the knowledge of Brahman also is enjoined
with a view to works only: it has no independent result of its own.




7. On account of definite rule.

Another argument for our conclusion is that the text 'Doing works here
let a man desire to live a hundred years,' &c. (Is. Up. II), expressly
enjoins lifelong works on him who knows the Self. The general conclusion,
therefore, is that knowledge (meditation) is merely auxiliary to works.
Of this view the next Sūtra finally disposes.




8. But on account of the teaching of the different one, Badarāyana's
(view is valid); as this is seen.

Knowledge by itself benefits man; since Scripture teaches that the
object of knowledge is the highest Brahman which, as it is of an
absolutely faultless and perfect nature, is other than the active
individual soul.

Badarāyana, therefore, holds that knowledge has an independent fruit of
its own. Let the inferential marks (referred to by the Pūrvapakshin) be;
the direct teaching of the texts certainly refers to a being different
from the Self that acts; for we clearly see that their object is the
highest creative Brahman with all its perfections and exalted qualities,
which cannot possibly be attributed to the individual Self whether in
the state of Release or of bondage: 'Free from evil, free from old age,'
&c. &c. In all those texts there is not the slightest trace of any
reference to the wretched individual soul, as insignificant and weak as
a tiny glow-worm, implicated in Nescience and all the other evils of
finite existence. And the fruit of that knowledge of the highest Person
the texts expressly declare, in many places, to be immortality--which
consists in attaining to Him. The view of knowledge by itself
benefitting man therefore is well founded.--The Sūtras proceed to
dispose of the so-called inferential marks.




9. But the declarations are equal.

The argument that knowledge must be held subordinate to work because we
learn from Scripture that those who know Brahman perform sacrificial
works, will not hold good; since, on the other hand, we also see that
men knowing Brahman abandoned all work; cp. texts such as 'The Rishis
descended from Kavasha said: For what purpose should we study the Veda?
for what purpose should we sacrifice?' As it thus appears that those who
know Brahman give up works, knowledge cannot be a mere auxiliary to
works.--But how can it be accounted for that those who know Brahman both
do and do not perform works?--Works may be performed in so far as
sacrifices and the like, if performed by one not having any special wish,
stand in subordinate relation to the knowledge of Brahman; hence there
is no objection to texts enjoining works. And as, on the other hand,
sacrifices and such-like works when aiming at results of their own are
opposed to the knowledge of Brahman which has Release for its only
result, there is all the less objection to texts which suggest the non-
performance of works. If, on the other hand, knowledge were subordinate
to works, works could on no account be dispensed with.--Against the
assertion that Scripture directly declares knowledge to be subordinate
to works the next Sūtra declares itself.




10. (It is) non-comprehensive.

The scriptural declaration does not refer to all meditations, but only
to the meditation on the Udgītha. In the clause 'what he does with
knowledge,' the 'what' is in itself indefinite, and therefore must be
defined as connecting itself with the Udgītha mentioned in the previous
clause, 'Let him meditate on the Udgītha.' The sentence cannot be
construed to mean 'whatever he does is to be done with knowledge,' but
means 'that which he does with knowledge becomes more vigorous,' and _that
which is_ done with knowledge that is the Udgītha. The next Sūtra
refutes the argument set forth in Sūtra 5.




11. There is distribution, as in the case of the hundred.

As knowledge and work have different results, the text 'of him knowledge
and work lay hold' must be understood in a distributive sense, i.e. as
meaning that knowledge lays hold of him to the end of bringing about its
own particular result, and that so likewise does work. 'As in the case
of a hundred,' i.e. as it is understood that, when a man selling a field
and a gem is said to receive two hundred gold pieces, one hundred are
given for the field and one hundred for the gem.




12. Of him who has merely read the Veda.

Nor is there any force in the argument that knowledge is only auxiliary
to work because works are enjoined on him who possesses knowledge. For
the text which refers to the man 'who has read the Veda' enjoins works
on him who has merely _read_ the texts, and _reading_ there means
nothing more than the apprehension of the aggregate of syllables called
Veda, without any insight into their meaning. A man who has thus
mastered the words of the Veda apprehends therefrom that it makes
statements as to works having certain results, and then on his own
account applies himself to the enquiry into the meaning of those
declarations; he who is desirous of work applies himself to the
knowledge of works; he who is desirous of Release applies himself to the
knowledge of Brahman. And even if the injunction of _reading_ were
understood as prompting to the understanding of the text also, all the
same, knowledge would not be a subsidiary to works. For _knowledge_, in
the sense of the Upanishads, is something different from mere cognition
of sense. In the same way as the performance of such works as the
Jyotishtoma sacrifice is something different from the cognition of the
true nature of those works; so that vidyā, which effects the highest
purpose of man, i. e. devout meditation (dhyāna, upāsanā), is something
different from the mere cognition of the true nature of Brahman.
Knowledge of that kind has not the most remote connexion even with works.





13. Not so, on account of non-specification.

Nor is it true that the text 'Doing works here,' &c., is meant to divert
him who knows the Self from knowledge and restrict him to works. For
there is no special reason to hold that that text refers to works as
independent means of a desirable result: it may as well be understood to
refer to works merely subordinate to knowledge. As he who knows the Self
has to practise meditation as long as he lives, he may also have to
practise, for the same period, works that are helpful to meditation.
Having thus refuted the objection on the ground of the reason of the
matter, the Sūtrakāra proceeds to give his own interpretation of the
text.




14. Or the permission is for the purpose of glorification.

The _or_ has assertive force. The introductory words of the Upanishad,
'Hidden in the Lord is all this,' show knowledge to be the subject-
matter; hence the permission of works can aim only at the glorification
of knowledge. The sense of the text therefore is--owing to the power of
knowledge a man although constantly performing works is not stained by
them.




15. Some also, by proceeding according to their liking.

In some sākhās, moreover, we read that he who possesses the knowledge of
Brahman may, according to his liking, give up the state of a householder,
'What shall we do with offspring, we who have this Self and this world?'
(Bri. Up. V, 4, 22.) This text also proves knowledge not to be
subsidiary to works; for if it were so subsidiary, it would not be
possible for him who knows Brahman to give up householdership (with all
the works obligatory on that state) according to his liking.




16. And destruction.

There is moreover a Vedānta-text which declares the knowledge of Brahman
to destroy work-good and evil--which is the root of all the afflictions
of transmigratory existence: 'The knot of the heart is broken, all
doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is
high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). This also contradicts the view of
knowledge being subordinate to works.




17. And of him who is chaste; for in Scripture (this is declared).

The knowledge of Brahman belongs to those who have to observe chastity,
and men living in that state have not to perform the Agnihotra, the
Darsapūrnamāsa, and similar works. For this reason also knowledge cannot
be subsidiary to works.--But, it may be objected, there is no such
condition of life; for texts such as 'he is to perform the Agnihotra as
long as he lives,' declare men to be obliged to perform sacrifices and
the like up to the end of their lives, and Smriti texts contradicting
Scripture have no authority.--To meet this the Sūtra adds 'for in
Scripture.' The three stages of life are recognised in Scripture only;
cp. texts such as 'Those who in the forest practise penance and faith'
(Ch. Up. V, 10, 1); 'Wishing for that world only mendicants wander forth
from their homes' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22). The text as to the lifelong
obligatoriness of the Agnihotra is valid for those only who do not
retire from worldly life.




18. A reference (only) Jaimini (holds them to be), on account of absence
of injunction; for (Scripture) forbids.

The argument for the three stages of life, founded on their mention in
Vedic texts, has no force, since all those references are only of the
nature of anuvāda. For none of those texts contain injunctive forms. The
text 'There are three branches of sacred observance,' &c. (Ch. Up. II,
23, 1), is meant to glorify the previous meditation on Brahman under the
form of the pranava, as appears from the concluding clause 'he who is
firmly grounded in Brahman obtains immortality'; it therefore cannot
mean to enjoin the three conditions of life as valid states. In the same
way the text 'And those who in the forest practise penance and faith'
refers to the statements previously made as to the path of the gods, and
cannot therefore be meant to make an original declaration as to another
condition of life. Scripture moreover expressly forbids that other
condition, 'a murderer of men is he who removes the fire,' &c. There are
therefore no conditions of life in which men are bound to observe
chastity. This is the opinion of the teacher Jaimini.




19. It is to be accomplished, Bādarayana holds, on account of scriptural
statement of equality.

Bādarāyana is of opinion that, in the same way as the condition of
householdership, those other conditions of life also are obligatory;
since in the section beginning 'there are three branches of sacred duty'
all the three conditions of life are equally referred to, with a view to
glorifying him who is firmly grounded in Brahman. The reference there
made to the condition of the householder necessarily presupposes that
condition to be already established and obligatory, and the same
reasoning then holds good with regard to the other conditions mentioned.
Nor must it be said that the special duties mentioned at the beginning
of the section--sacrifice, study, charity, austerity, Brahmakarya--all
of them belong to the state of the householder (in which case the text
would contain no reference to the other conditions of life); for on that
supposition the definite reference to a threefold division of duties,
'Sacrifice, &c. are the first, austerity the second, Brahmakarya the
third,' would be unmeaning. The proper explanation is to take the words'
sacrifice, study, and charity' as descriptive of the condition of the
householder; the word 'austerity' as descriptive of the duties of the
Vaikhānasa and the wandering mendicant, who both practise mortification;
and the word 'Brahmakarya' as referring to the duties of the Brahmakarin.
The term 'Brahmasamstha' finally, in the concluding clause, refers to
all the three conditions of life, as men belonging to all those
conditions may be founded on Brahman. Those, the text means to say, who
are destitute of this foundation on Brahman and only perform the special
duties of their condition of life, obtain the worlds of the blessed;
while he only who at the same time founds himself on Brahman attains to
immortality.--In the text 'and those who in the forest,' &c. the mention
made of the forest shows that the statement as to the path of the gods
has for its presupposition the fact that that stage of life which is
especially connected with the forest is one generally recognised.--So
far it has been shown that the other stages of life are no less
obligatory than that of the householder, whether we take the text under
discussion as containing merely a reference to those stages (as
established by independent means of proof) or as directly enjoining them.
The next Sūtra is meant to show that the latter view is after all the
right one.




20. Or an injunction, as in the case of the carrying.

As the second part of the text 'Let him approach carrying the firewood
below the ladle; for above he carries it for the gods' (which refers to
a certain form of the Agnihotra), although having the form of an anuvāda,
yet must be interpreted as an injunction, since the carrying of firewood
above is not established by any other injunction; so the text under
discussion also must be taken as an injunction of the different stages
of life (which are not formally enjoined elsewhere). No account being
taken of the text of the Jābālas, 'Having completed his studentship he
is to become a householder,' &c., it is thus a settled conclusion that
the texts discussed, although primarily concerned with other topics,
must at the same time be viewed as proving the validity of the several
conditions of life. From this it follows that the text enjoining the
performance of the Agnihotra up to the end of life, and similar texts,
are not universally binding, but concern those only who do not retire
from worldly life.--The final conclusion therefore is that as the
knowledge of Brahman is enjoined on those who lead a life of austerity
(which does not require the performance of sacrifices and the like), it
is not subordinate to works, but is in itself beneficial to man.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'benefit to man.'




21. If it be said that they are mere glorification, on account of their
reference; not so, on account of the newness.

The following point is next enquired into. Are texts such as 'That
Udgītha is the best of all essences, the highest, holding the supreme
place, the eighth' (Ch. Up. I, 1, 3) meant to glorify the Udgītha as a
constituent element of the sacrifice, or to enjoin a meditation on the
Udgītha as the best of all essences, and so on? The Pūrvapakshin holds
the former view, on the ground that the text declares the Udgītha to be
the best of all essences in so far as being a constituent element of the
sacrifice. The case is analogous to that of texts such as 'the ladle is
this earth, the āhavanīya is the heavenly world,' which are merely meant
to glorify the ladle and the rest as constituent members of the
sacrifice.--This view the latter part of the Sūtra sets aside 'on
account of newness.' Texts, as the one referring to the Udgītha, cannot
be mere glorifications; for the fact of the Udgītha being the best of
essences is not established by any other means of proof, and the text
under discussion cannot therefore be understood as a mere anuvāda, meant
for glorification. Nor is there, in proximity, any injunction of the
Udgītha on account of connexion with which the clause declaring the
Udgītha to be the best of all essences could naturally be taken as an
anuvāda (glorifying the thing previously enjoined in the injunctive
text); while there is such an injunction in connexion with the (anuvāda)
text 'The ladle is this earth,' and so on. We thus cannot but arrive at
the conclusion that the text is meant to enjoin a meditation on the
Udgītha as being the best of all essences, and so on--the fruit of such
meditation being an increase of vigour and efficacy on the part of the
sacrifice.




22. And on account of the words denoting becoming.

That the texts under discussion have an injunctive purport also follows
from the fact that they contain verbal forms denoting becoming or
origination--'he is to meditate' and the like; for all such forms have
injunctive force. All these texts therefore are meant to enjoin special
forms of meditation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of mere
glorification.'




23. Should it be said that (the stories told in the Upanishads) are for
the purpose of the Pāriplava; not so, since (certain stories) are
specified.

We meet in the Vedānta-texts with certain stories such as 'Pratardana
the son of Divodāsa came to the beloved abode of Indra,' &c., and
similar ones. The question here arises whether the stories are merely
meant to be recited at the Asvamedha sacrifice or to convey knowledge of
a special kind.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains that as the text' they tell
the stories' declares the special connexion of those stories with the so-
called pāriplava performance, they cannot be assumed to be mainly
concerned with knowledge.--This view the Sūtra negatives, on the ground
that not all stories of that kind are specially connected with the
pāriplava. The texts rather single out special stories only as suitable
for that performance; on the general injunction quoted above there
follows an injunction defining _which_ stories are to be told, 'King
Manu, the son of Vivasvat,' &c. The stories told in the Vedānta-texts do
not therefore form parts of the pāriplava performance, but are connected
with injunctions of meditations.




24. This follows also from the textual connexion (of those stories with
injunctions).

That those stories subserve injunctions of meditation is proved thereby
also that they are exhibited in textual connexion with injunctions such
as 'the Self is to be seen,' and so on. Their position therefore is
analogous to that of other stories told in the texts, which somehow
subserve injunctions of works, and are not merely meant for purposes of
recitation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the pāriplava.'




25. For this very reason there is no need of the lighting of the fire
and so on.

The Sūtras return, from their digression into the discussion of two
special points, to the question as to those whose condition of life
involves chastity. The above Sūtra declares that as persons of that
class are referred to by Scripture as specially concerned with
meditation ('He who is founded on Brahman reaches immortality;' 'those
who in the forest,' &c.), their meditation does not presuppose a
knowledge of the kindling of fire and so on, i.e. a knowledge of the
Agnihotra, the Darsapūrnamāsa, and all those other sacrifices which
require the preliminary establishnlent of the sacred fires, but a
knowledge of those works only which are enjoined for their special
condition of life.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the kindling of
the fire.'




26. And there is need of all (works), on account of the scriptural
statement of sacrifices and the rest; as in the case of the horse.

If knowledge (meditation), without any reference to sacrifices and the
like, is able to bring about immortality, it must be capable of
accomplishing this in the case of householders also; and the mention
made of sacrifices and the rest in texts such as 'Brāhmanas seek to know
him by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts' (Bri. Up. IV, 4,
22), does not prove sacrifices and so on to be auxiliary to knowledge,
since the stress there lies (not on the sacrifices and so on, but) on
the desire of knowledge.--Of this view the Sūtra disposes. In the case
of householders, for whom the Agnihotra and so on are obligatory,
knowledge presupposes all those works, since scriptural texts such as
the one quoted directly state that sacrifices and the like are auxiliary
to knowledge. 'They seek to know by means of sacrifices' can be said
only if sacrifices are understood to be a means through which knowledge
is brought about; just as one can say 'he desires to slay with a sword,'
because the sword is admitted to be an instrument wherewith one can kill.
What we have to understand by knowledge in this connexion has been
repeatedly explained, viz. a mental energy different in character from
the mere cognition of the sense of texts, and more specifically denoted
by such terms as dhyāna or upāsana, i.e. meditation; which is of the
nature of remembrance (i.e. representative thought), but in intuitive
clearness is not inferior to the clearest presentative thought
(pratyaksha); which by constant daily practice becomes ever more perfect,
and being duly continued up to death secures final Release. Such
meditation is originated in the mind through the grace of the Supreme
Person, who is pleased and conciliated by the different kinds of acts of
sacrifice and worship duly performed by the Devotee day after day. This
is what the text 'they seek to know through the sacrifice' really means.
The conclusion therefore is that in the case of householders knowledge
has for its pre-requisite all sacrifices and other works of permanent
and occasional obligation. 'As a horse.' As the horse, which is a means
of locomotion for man, requires attendants, grooming, &c., so knowledge,
although itself the means of Release, demands the co-operation of the
different works. Thus the Lord himself says, 'The work of sacrifice,
giving, and austerities is not to be relinquished, but is indeed to be
performed; for sacrifices, gifts, and austerities are purifying to the
thoughtful.' 'He from whom all beings proceed and by whom all this is
pervaded-worshipping Him with the proper works man attains to perfection'
(Bha. Gī. XVIII, 5; 46).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the need
of all.'




27. But all the same he must be possessed of calmness, subjection of the
senses, &c., since those are enjoined as auxiliaries to that, and must
necessarily be accomplished.

The question is whether the householder also must practise calmness and
so on, or not. The Pūrvapakshin says he must not, since the performance
of works implies the activity of the outer and inner organs of action,
and since calmness and so on are of an exactly opposite nature.--This
view the Sūtra sets aside. The householder also, although engaged in
outward activity, must, in so far as he possesses knowledge, practise
calmness of mind and the rest also; for these qualities or states are by
Scripture enjoined as auxiliaries to knowledge, 'Therefore he who knows
this, having become calm, subdued, satisfied, patient, and collected,
should see the Self in Self (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23). As calmness of mind
and the rest are seen, in so far as implying composure and concentration
of mind, to promote the origination of knowledge, they also must
necessarily be aimed at and practised. Nor can it be said that between
works on the one side and calmness and so on on the other, there is an
absolute antagonism; for the two have different spheres of application.
Activity of the organs of action is the proper thing in the case of
works enjoined; quiescence in the case of works not enjoined and such as
have no definite purpose. Nor also can it be objected that in the case
of works implying the activity of organs, calmness of mind and so on are
impossible, the mind then being necessarily engrossed by the impressions
of the present work and its surroundings; for works enjoined by
Scripture have the power of pleasing the Supreme Person, and hence,
through his grace, to cause the destruction of all mental impressions
obstructive of calmness and concentration of mind. Hence calmness of
mind and the rest are to be aimed at and practised by householders also.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'calmness' and so on.




28. And there is permission of all food in the case of danger of life;
on account of this being seen.

In the meditation on prāna, according to the Vājasaneyins and the
Chāndogas, there is a statement as to all food being allowed to him who
knows the prāna. 'By him there is nothing eaten that is not food' (Bri.
Up. VI, 1, 14; and so on). A doubt here arises whether this permission
of all food is valid for him who possesses the knowledge of prāna, in
all circumstances, or only in the case of life being in danger.--The
Pūrvapakshin holds the former view, on account of no special conditions
being stated in the text.--This the Sūtra sets aside 'in the case of
danger to life'; for the reason that, as the text shows, the eating of
food of all kinds is permitted even for those who know Brahman itself--
the knowledge of which of course is higher than that of prāna--only when
their life is in danger. The text alluded to is the one telling how
Ushasta Kākrāyana, who was well versed in the knowledge of Brahman, once,
when in great distress, ate unlawful food. We therefore conclude that
what the text says as to all food being lawful for him who knows prāna,
can refer only to occasions when food of any kind must be eaten in order
to preserve life.




29. And on account of non-sublation.

The conclusion above arrived at is confirmed by the consideration that
thus only those texts are not stultified which enjoin, for those who
know Brahman, purity in matters of food with a view to the origination
of knowledge of Brahman. Cp.' when the food is pure the mind becomes
pure' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2).




30. This is said in Smriti also.

That for those as well who know Brahman, as for others, the eating of
food of any kind is lawful only in case of extreme need, Smriti also
declares, 'He who being in danger of his life eats food from anywhere is
stained by sin no more than the lotus leaf by water.'




31. And hence also a scriptural passage as to non-proceeding according
to liking.

The above conclusion is further confirmed by a scriptural passage
prohibiting licence of conduct on the part of any one. The text meant is
a passage in the Samhitā of the Kathas, 'Therefore a Brahmawa does not
drink spirituous liquor, thinking "may I not be stained by sin."'--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the allowance of all food.'




32. The works of the āsramas also, on account of their being enjoined.

It has been said that sacrifices and other works are auxiliary to the
knowledge of Brahman. The doubt now arises whether those works are to be
performed by him also who merely wishes to fulfil the duties of his
āsrama, without aiming at final Release, or not. They are not, the
Pūrvapakshin holds, for that things auxiliary to knowledge should stand
in subordinate relation to a certain state of life would imply the
contradiction of permanent and non-permanent obligation.--Of this view
the Sūtra disposes, 'The works of the āsramas also.' The works belonging
to each āsrama have to be performed by those also who do not aim at more
than to live according to the āsrama; for they are specifically enjoined
by texts such as as long as life lasts he is to offer the Agnihotra';
this implies a permanent obligation dependent on life. And that the same
works are also to be performed as being auxiliary to knowledge appears
from the texts enjoining them in that aspect, 'Him they seek to know by
the study of the Veda' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22); this the next Sūtra
declares.




33. And on account of co-operativeness.

These works are to be performed also on account of their being co-
operative towards knowledge in so far, namely, as they give rise to the
desire of knowledge; and their thus being enjoined for a double purpose
does not imply contradiction any more than the double injunctions of the
Agnihotra, which one text connects with the life of the sacrificer and
another text with his desire to reach the heavenly world.--Nor does this
imply a difference of works--this the next Sūtra declares.




34. In any case they are the same, on account of twofold inferential
signs.

There is no radical difference of works; but in any case, i.e. whether
they be viewed as duties incumbent on the āsrama or as auxiliary to
knowledge, sacrifices and other works are one and the same. For
Scripture, in enjoining them in both these aspects, makes use of the
same terms, so that we recognise the same acts, and there is no means of
proof to establish difference of works.




35. And Scripture also declares (knowledge) not to be overpowered.

Texts such as 'By works of sacred duty he drives away evil' declare that
sacrifices and similar works have the effect of knowledge 'not being
overpowered,' i.e. of the origination of knowledge not being obstructed
by evil works. Sacrifices and similar works being performed day after
day have the effect of purifying the mind, and owing to this, knowledge
arises in the mind with ever increasing brightness. This proves that the
works are the same in either case.--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'the being enjoined' (of sacrifices, and so on).




36. Also in the case of those outside, as this is seen.

It has been declared that the members of the four āsramas have a claim
to the knowledge of Brahman, and that the duties connected with each
āsrarna promote knowledge. A doubt now arises whether those men also who,
on account of poverty and so on, stand outside the āsramas are qualified
for the knowledge of Brahman, or rtot.--They are not, the Pūrvapakshin
holds, since such knowledge is to be attained in a way dependent on the
special duties of each āsrama; while those who do not belong to an
āsrama are not concerned with āsrama duties.--This view the Sūtra
rejects. Those also who do not stand within any āsrama are qualified for
knowledge, 'because that is seen,' i.e. because the texts declare that
men such as Raikva, Bhīshma, Samvarta and others who did not belong to
āsrama were well grounded in the knowledge of Brahman. It can by no
means be maintained that it is āsrama duties only that promote knowledge;
for the text 'by gifts, by penance, by fasting, and so on' (Bri. Up. IV,
4, 22) distinctly declares that charity also and other practices, which
are not confined to the āsramas, are helpful towards knowledge. In the
same way as in the case of those bound to chastity--who, as the texts
show, may possess the knowledge of Brahman--knowledge is promoted by
practices other than the Agnihotra and the like, so--it is concluded--in
the case of those also who do not belong to any abrama knowledge may be
promoted by certain practices not exclusively connected with any āsrama,
such as prayer, fasting, charity, propitiation of the divinity, and so
on.




37. Smriti also states this.

Smriti also declares that men not belonging to an āsrama grow in
knowledge through prayer and the like. 'Through prayer also a Brāhmana
may become perfect. May he perform other works or not, one who befriends
all creatures is called a Brāhmana' (Manu Smri. II, 17).




38. And there is the promotion (of knowledge) through special acts (of
duty).

The above conclusion is founded not only on Reasoning and Smriti; but
Scripture even directly states that knowledge is benefited by practices
not exclusively prescribed for the āsramas, 'By penance, abstinence,
faith, and knowledge he is to seek the Self (Pr. Up. I, 10).




39. But better than that is the other also on account of an inferential
mark.

Better than to be outside the āsramas is the condition of standing
within an āsrama. The latter state may be due to misfortune; but he who
can should be within an āsrama, which state is the more holy and
beneficial one. This follows from inference only, i.e. Smriti; for
Smriti says, 'A Brāhmana is to remain outside the āsramas not even for
one day.' For one who has passed beyond the stage of Brahmakarya, or
whose wife has died, the impossibility to procure a wife constitutes the
misfortune (which prevents him from belonging to an āsrama).--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'widowers.'




40. But of him who has become that there is no becoming not that,
according to Jaimini also, on account of (Scripture) restraining from
the absence of the forms of that.

The doubt here arises whether those also who have fallen from the state
of life of a Naishthika, Vaikhānasa or Pārivrājaka are qualified for the
knowledge of Brahman or not.--They are so, since in their case, no less
than in that of widowers and the like, the growth of knowledge may be
assisted by charity and other practices not confined to āsramas.--This
primā facie view the Sūtra sets aside. 'He who has become that,' i.e. he
who has entered on the condition of a Naishthika or the like 'cannot
become not that,' i.e. may not live in a non-āsrama condition; since
scriptural texts restrain men who once have entered the Naishthika, &c.,
state 'from the absence of the forms of that,' i.e. from the
discontinuance of the special duties of their āsrama. Compare texts such
as 'He is to go into the forest, and is not to return from thence';
'Having renounced the world he is not to return.' And hence persons who
have lapsed from their āsrama are not qualified for meditation on
Brahman. This view of his the Sūtrakāra strengthens by a reference to
the opinion of Jaimini.--But cannot a Naishthika who, through some sin,
has lapsed from his duties and position, make up for his transgression
by some expiatory act and thus again become fit for meditation on
Brahman?--To this point the next Sūtra refers.




41. Nor the (expiatory performance) described in the chapter treating of
qualification; that being impossible on account of the Smriti referring
to such lapse.

Those expiatory performances which are described in the chapter treating
of qualification (Pū. Mī. Sū. VI) are not possible in the case of him
who has lapsed from the condition of a Naishthika; since such expiations
do not apply to him, as is shown by a Smriti text referring to such
lapse, viz. 'He who having once entered on the duties of a Naishthika
lapses from them, for such a slayer of the Self I do not see any
expiatory work by which he might become clean.' The expiatory ceremony
referred to in the Pūrva Mimāmsā therefore applies to the case of other
Brahmakārins only.




42. A minor one, thus some; (and hence they hold) the existence (of
expiation), as in the case of eating. This has been explained.

Some teachers are of opinion that even on the part of Naishthikas and
the rest the lapse from chastity constitutes only a minor offence which
can be atoned for by expiatory observances; in the same way as in the
case of the eating of forbidden food the same prāyaskitta may be used by
the ordinary Brahmakārin and by Naishthikas and the rest. This has been
stated by the Smriti writer, 'For the others also (i.e. the Naishthikas
and so on) the same (rules and practices as those for the Upakurvāna)
hold good, in so far as not opposed to their āsrama.'




43. But in either case (such men) stand outside; on account of Smriti
and custom.

Whether the point under discussion constitutes a minor or a major
offence, in any case those who have lapsed stand outside the category of
those qualified for the knowledge of Brahman. For Smriti, i.e. the text
quoted above, 'I see no expiatory performance by which he, a slayer of
Brahman as he is, could become pure again,' declares that expiations are
powerless to restore purity. And custom confirms the same conclusion;
for good men shun those Naishthikas who have lapsed, even after they
have performed prāyaskittas, and do not impart to them the knowledge of
Brahman, The conclusion, therefore, is that such men are not qualified
for knowing Brahman.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'him who has
become that.'




44. By the Lord (of the sacrifice), since Scripture declares a fruit--
thus Ātreya thinks.

A doubt arises whether the meditations on such constituent elements of
the sacrifice as the Udgītha, and so on, are to be performed by the
sacrificer (for whose benefit the sacrifice is offered), or by the
officiating priests. Ātreya advocates the former view; on the ground of
Scripture showing that in the case of such meditations as the one on the
small ether within the heart, fruit and meditation belong to the same
person, and that in the case of such meditations as the one on the
Udgītha the fruit belongs to the sacrificer (whence we conclude that the
meditation also is his). Nor can it be said that the sacrificer is not
competent for such meditation, for the reason that like the godohana
vessel it is connected with an element of the sacrifice (which latter
the priests only can perform). For the godohana vessel serves to bring
water, and this of course none else can do but the Adhvaryu; while a
meditation on the Udgītha as being the essence of all essences can very
well be performed by the Sacrificer--true though it be that the Udgītha
itself can be performed by the Udgātri priest only.--Against this view
the next Sūtra declares itself.




45. (They are) the priest's work, Audulomi thinks; since for that he is
engaged.

The teacher Audulomi is of opinion that the meditation on the Udgītha
and the like is the work of the priest, since it is he who is engaged
for the purpose of performing that which gives rise to the fruit, i.e.
of the entire sacrifice with all its subordinate parts. Injunctions
referring to the performance of the sacrifices such as 'he chooses the
priests; he gives to the priests their fee' indicate that the entire
sacrificial performance is the work of the priests, and that hence all
activities comprised within it--mental as well as bodily--belong to the
priests. Capability or non-capability does not constitute the criterion
in this case. For although the meditations in question aim directly at
the benefit of man (not at the greater perfection of the sacrifice), yet
since they fall within the sphere of qualification of those who are
qualified for the sacrifice, and since the sacrifice with all its
subordinate elements has to be performed by the priests, and since the
text 'whatever he does with knowledge that becomes more vigorous'
declares knowledge to belong to the same agent as the works which are
benefited by such knowledge, we conclude that those meditations also are
the exclusive duty of the priests. In the case of the meditations on the
small ether, &c., on the other hand, the text says nothing as to their
having to be performed by priests, and we therefore assume in accordance
with the general principle that 'the fruit belongs to the performer,'
that the agent there is the person to whom Scripture assigns the fruit.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the lord (of the sacrifice).'




46. There is injunction of other auxiliary means for him who is such, as
in the case of injunction and so on; (the term _mauna_ denoting)
according to an alternative meaning a third something.

'Therefore let a Brāhmana after he has done with learning wish to stand
by a childlike state; and after having done with the childlike state and
learning (he is) a Muni' (Bri. Up. III, 5). A doubt arises whether this
text enjoins Muni-hood in the same way as it enjoins learning and the
childlike state, or merely refers to it as something already established.--
The Purvapakshin holds the latter view on the ground that as 'Muni-hood'
and 'learning' both connote knowledge, the word 'Muni' merely refers
back to the knowledge already enjoined in the phrase 'after he has done
with learning.' For the text presents no word of injunctive force with
regard to Muni-hood.--This view the Sūtra controverts. 'For him who is
such,' i.e. for those who possess knowledge, 'there is an injunction of
a different co-operative factor' 'in the same way as injunctions and
the rest.' By the _injunctions_ in the last clause we have to understand
the special duties of the different āsramas, i.e. sacrifices and the
like, and also such qualifications as quietness of mind and the like;
and by the 'and the rest' is meant the learning of and pondering on the
sacred texts. Stated at length, the meaning of the Sūtra then is as
follows--in the same way as texts such as 'him Brāhmanas seek to know
through the reciting of the Veda, through sacrifices and charity, and so
on,' and 'Quiet, subdued,' &c. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23) enjoin sacrifices
and so on, and quietness of mind and the like, as helpful towards
knowledge; and as texts such as 'the Self is to be heard, to be pondered
upon' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 5) mention hearing and pondering as helpful
towards knowledge; thus the text under discussion enjoins learning, a
childlike state of mind, and Muni-hood as three further different
auxiliaries of knowledge.--'Muni-hood' does _not_ denote the same thing
as 'learning'--this the Sūtra intimates by the clause 'alternatively a
third,' i.e. as the word muni is observed alternatively to denote
persons such as Vyāsa distinguished by their power of profound
reflection (manana), the abstract term munihood denotes a third thing
different from _learning_ and the 'childlike state.' Hence, although the
phrase 'then a Muni' does not contain a word of directly injunctive
power, we must all the same understand it in an injunctive sense, viz.
'then let him be or become a Muni'; for Muni-hood is not something
previously established. Such munihood is also something different from
mere _reflection_ (manana); it is the reiterated representation before
the mind of the object of meditation, the idea of that object thus
becoming more and more vivid. The meaning of the entire text therefore
is as follows. A Brāhmana is at first fully to master knowledge, i.e. he
is to attain, by means of hearing and pondering, to the knowledge of
Brahman in all its fulness and perfection. This is to be effected
through the growth of purity of mind and heart, due to the grace of the
Lord; for this Smriti declares, 'Neither by the Vedas nor by austerities,
and so on, can I be so seen--; but by devotion exclusive I may be known'
(Bha. Gī. XI, 53-54); and Scripture also says, 'Who has the highest
devotion for God' (Svet. Up. VI, 23), and 'That Self cannot be gained by
the study of the Veda,' &c. 'He whom the Self chooses by him the Self is
to be attained' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 23). After that 'he is to stand by a
childlike state'; what this means will be explained further on. And
after that he is to be a Muni, i.e. he is to fix his thoughts so
exclusively and persistently on Brahman as to attain to the mode of
knowledge called meditation. Having by the employment of these three
means reached true knowledge he--the text goes on to say--having done
with amauna and mauna is a Brāhmana. Amauna, i.e. non-mauna, denotes all
the auxiliaries of knowledge different from mauna: employing these and
mauna as well he reaches the highest goal of knowledge. And, the text
further says, there is no other means but those stated whereby to become
such, i.e. a true Brāhmana. The entire text thus evidently means to
enjoin on any one standing within any āsrama learning, a childlike state,
and mauna as auxiliary means of knowledge, in addition to sacrifices and
the other special duties of the āsramas.--But, an objection is raised,
if knowledge, aided by pānditya, and so on, and thus being auxiliary to
the action of the special duties of the āsramas, is thus declared to be
the means of attaining to Brahman; how then are we to understand the
Chāndogya's declaring that a man, in order to attain to Brahman, is
throughout his life to carry on the duties of a householder [FOOTNOTE 711:
1]?--To this the next Sūtra replies.

[FOOTNOTE 711:1. Ch. Up. VIII, 13.]




47. But on account of the existence (of knowledge) in all, there is
winding up with the householder.

As knowledge belongs to the members of all āsramas it belongs to the
householder also, and for this reason the Upanishad winds up with the
latter. This winding up therefore is meant to illustrate the duties (not
of the householder only, but) of the members of all āsramas. Analogously
in the text under discussion (Bri. Up. III, 5) the clause 'A Brāhmana
having risen above the desire for sons, the desire for wealth, and the
desire for worlds, wanders about as a mendicant,' intimates duties
belonging exclusively to the condition of the wandering beggar, and then
the subsequent clause 'therefore let a Brāhmana having done with
learning,' &c., enjoins pānditya, bālya, and mauna (not as incumbent on
the pārivrājaka only, but) as illustrating the duties of all āsramas.--
This the next Sūtra explicitly declares.




48. On account of the others also being taught, in the same way as the
condition of the Muni.

The injunction, on him who has passed beyond all desire, of mauna
preceded by pārivrājya (wandering about as a mendicant), is meant to
illustrate the duties of all āsramas. For the duties of the other
āsramas are taught by Scripture no less than those of the Muni (and the
householder). Similarly it was shown above that in the text 'There are
three branches of sacred duty--he who is founded on Brahman goes to
immortality,' the term 'founded on Brahman' applies equally to members
of all āsramas.--It therefore remains a settled conclusion that the
text under discussion enjoins pānditya, bālya, and mauna as being
auxiliaries to knowledge in the same way as the other duties of the
āsramas, such as sacrifices and the rest.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the injunction of other auxiliaries.'




49. Not manifesting itself; on account of the connexion.

In the text discussed above we meet with the word 'bālya,' which may
mean either 'being a child' or 'being and doing like a child.' The
former meaning is excluded, as that particular age which is called
childhood cannot be assumed at will. With regard to the latter meaning,
however, a doubt arises, viz. whether the text means to say that he who
aims at perfect knowledge is to assume all the ways of a child, as e.g.
its wilful behaviour, or only its freedom from pride and the like.--The
former, the Pūrvapakshin maintains. For the text gives no specification,
and texts enjoining restraints of different kinds (on the man desirous
of knowledge) are sublated by this specific text which enjoins him to be
in all points like a child.--This view the Sūtra disposes of. 'Not
manifesting itself.' That aspect of a child's nature which consists in
the child not manifesting its nature (viz. in pride, arrogance, and so
on), the man aiming at true knowledge is to make his own. 'On account of
connexion,' i.e. because thus only the 'balya' of the text gives a
possible sense. The other characteristic features of 'childhood' the
texts declare to be opposed to knowledge, 'He who has not turned away
from wicked conduct, who is not tranquil and attentive, or whose mind is
not at peace, he can never attain the Self by knowledge' (Ka. Up. I, 2,
24); 'When food is pure, the whole nature becomes pure' (Ch. Up. VII, 26,
2), and so on.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-manifestation.'




50. What belongs to this world, there being no obstruction at hand; as
this is seen.

Knowledge, as enjoined by Scripture, is twofold, having for its fruit
either exaltation within the sphere of the Samsāra, or final Release.
With regard to the former the question arises whether it springs up only
immediately subsequent to the good works which are the means to bring it
about; or, indefinitely, either subsequent to such works or at some
later time.--The Pūrvapakshin holds the former view. A man reaches
knowledge through his good deeds only, as the Lord himself declares,
'Four kinds of men doing good works worship me,' &c.(Bha. Gī. VII, 16);
and when those works have been accomplished there is no reason why the
result, i.e. knowledge, should be delayed.--This view the Sūtra disposes
of. 'What is comprised in this world,' i.e. meditation, the result of
which is worldly exaltation, springs up immediately after the works to
which it is due, in case of there being no other works of greater
strength obstructing the rise of knowledge; but if there is an
obstruction of the latter kind, knowledge springs up later on only. 'For
this is seen,' i.e. Scripture acknowledges the effects of such
obstruction; for a statement such as 'what he does with knowledge, with
faith, with the Upanishad that is more vigorous,' means that works
joined with the knowledge of the Udgītha, and so on, produce their
results without obstruction (which implies that the action of other
works is liable to be obstructed).--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'what belongs to this world.'




51. In the same way there is non-determination with regard to what has
Release for its result; that condition being ascertained, that condition
being ascertained.

So likewise in the case of the origination, through works of very great
merit, of such knowledge as has for its result final Release, the time
is not definitely fixed; for here also there is ascertained the same
condition, viz. the termination of the obstruction presented by other
works. A further doubt might in this case be raised on the ground that
such works as give rise to knowledge leading to final Release are
stronger than all other works, and therefore not liable to obstruction.
But this doubt is disposed of by the reflection that even in the case of
a man knowing Brahman there may exist previous evil deeds of
overpowering strength.--The repetition of the last words of the Sūtra
indicates the completion of the adhyāya.--Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'what has Release for its result.'




FOURTH ADHYĀYA

FIRST PĀDA.

1. Repetition, on account of the text teaching (what has to be done more
than once).

The third adhyāya was concerned with the consideration of meditation,
together with its means. The Sūtras now enter on a consideration of the
results of meditation, after a further preliminary clearing up of the
nature of meditation. The question here arises whether the act of
knowledge of Brahman inculcated in Vedānta-texts, such as 'He who knows
Brahman reaches the Highest,' 'Having known him thus he passes beyond
death,' 'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman,' is, in the view of
Scripture, to be performed once only, or to be repeated more than once.--
Once suffices, the Pūrvapakshin maintains; for as the text enjoins
nothing more than knowing there is no authority for a repetition of the
act. Nor can it be said that the act of knowing, analogous to the act of
beating the rice-grains until they are freed from the husks, is a
visible means towards effecting the intuition of Brahman, and hence must,
like the beating, be repeated until the effect is accomplished; for
knowing is not a visible means towards anything. Such acts as the
Jyotishtoma sacrifice and the knowledge inculcated in the Vedānta-texts
are alike of the nature of conciliation of the Supreme Person; through
whom thus conciliated man obtains all that is beneficial to him, viz.
religious duty, wealth, pleasure, and final Release. This has been shown
under III, 2, 38. The meaning of Scripture therefore is accomplished by
performing the act of knowledge once only, as the Jyotishtoma is
performed once.--This view the Sūtra sets aside. The meaning of
Scripture is fulfilled only by repeated acts of knowledge 'on account of
teaching,' i.e. because the teaching of Scripture is conveyed by means
of the term 'knowing' (vedana), which is synonymous with meditating
(dhyāna, upāsana). That these terms are so synonymous appears from the
fact that the verbs vid, upās, dhyāi are in one and the same text used
with reference to one and the same object of knowledge. A text begins, e.
g. 'Let him meditate (upāsīta) on mind as Brahman,' and concludes 'he
who knows (veda) this shines, warms,' &c. (Ch. Up. III, 18). In the same
way the knowledge of Raikva is at first referred to by means of vid, 'He
who knows (veda) what he knows is thus spoken of by me,' and further on
by means of upās,'teach me the deity on which you meditate' (Ch. Up. IV,
1, 2). Similarly texts which have the same meaning as the text 'He who
knows Brahman reaches the Highest'--viz. 'the Self should be seen, be
heard, be reflected on, be meditated upon (nididhyāsitavya)'--'Then he
sees him meditating (dhyāyamāna) on him as without parts' (Mu. Up. III,
1, 8), and others--use the verb dhyāi to express the meaning of vid. Now
dhyāi means to think of something not in the way of mere representation
(smriti), but in the way of _continued_ representation. And upās has the
same meaning; for we see it used in the sense of thinking with
uninterrupted concentration of the mind on one object. We therefore
conclude that as the verb 'vid' is used interchangeably with dhyāi and
upās, the mental activity referred to in texts such as 'he knows
Brahman' and the like is an often-repeated continuous representation.




2. And on account of an inferential mark.

Inferential mark here means Smriti. Smriti also declares that that
knowledge which effects Release is of the nature of continued
representation. Meditation therefore has to be repeated.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'repetition.'




3. But as the Self; this (the ancient Devotees) acknowledge (since the
texts) make (them) apprehend (in that way).

The following point is now taken into consideration. Is Brahman to be
meditated upon as something different from the meditating Devotee, or as
the Self of the latter?--The Pūrvapakshin holds the former view. For, he
says, the individual soul is something different from Brahman; as has
been proved under II, 1, 22; III, 4, 8; I, 1, 15. And Brahman must be
meditated upon as it truly is; for if it is meditated upon under an
unreal aspect, the attaining to Brahman also will not be real, according
to the principle expressed in the text, 'According as a man's thought is
in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life' (Ch. Up.
III, 14, 1). This view the Sūtra sets aside. Brahman is rather to be
meditated upon as being the Self of the meditating Devotee. As the
meditating individual soul is the Self of its own body, so the highest
Brahman is the Self of the individual soul--this is the proper form of
meditation.--Why? Because the great Devotees of olden times acknowledged
this to be the true nature of meditation; compare the text 'Then I am
indeed thou, holy divinity, and thou art me.'--But how can the Devotees
claim that Brahman which is a different being is their 'Ego'?--Because
the texts enable them to apprehend this relation as one free from
contradiction. 'He who dwelling within the Self is different from the
Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who
rules the Self from within; he is thy Self, the inner ruler, the
immortal one'(Bri. Up. III, 7, 3); 'In the True all these beings have
their root, they dwell in the True, they rest in the True;--in that all
that exists has its Self' (Kh. Up. VI, 8); 'All this indeed is Brahman'
(Kh. Up. III, 14, 1)--all these texts teach that all sentient and non-
sentient beings spring from Brahman, are merged in him, breathe through
him, are ruled by him, constitute his body; so that he is the Self of
all of them. In the same way therefore as, on the basis of the fact that
the individual soul occupies with regard to the body the position of a
Self, we form such judgments of co-ordination as 'I am a god--I am a
man'; the fact of the individual Self being of the nature of Self
justifies us in viewing our own Ego as belonging to the highest Self. On
the presupposition of all ideas being finally based on Brahman and hence
all words also finally denoting Brahman, the texts therefore make such
statements of mutual implication as 'I am thou, O holy divinity, and
thou art me.' On this view of the relation of individual soul and
highest Self there is no real contradiction between two, apparently
contradictory, sets of texts, viz. those on the one hand which negative
the view of the soul being different from the highest Self, 'Now if a
man meditates upon another divinity, thinking "the divinity is one and I
another," he does not know'; 'He is incomplete, let him meditate upon
Him as the Self'; 'Everything abandons him who views anything apart from
the Self (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10; 7-II, 4, 6); and on the other hand those
texts which set forth the view of the soul and the highest Self being
different entities, 'Thinking of the (individual) Self and the Mover as
different'(Svet. Up. I, 6). For our view implies a denial of difference
in so far as the individual 'I' is of the nature of the Self; and it
implies an acknowledgment of difference in so far as it allows the
highest Self to differ from the individual soul in the same way as the
latter differs from its body. The clause 'he is incomplete' (in one of
the texts quoted above) refers to the fact that Brahman which is
different from the soul constitutes the Self of the soul, while the soul
constitutes the body of Brahman.--It thus remains a settled conclusion
that Brahman is to be meditated upon as constituting the Self of the
meditating Devotee.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'meditation under
the aspect of Self.'




4. Not in the symbol; for (the symbol) is not that one (i.e. the Self of
the Devotee).

'Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 1); 'He who
meditates on name as Brahman' (Ch. Up. VII, 15)--with regard to these
and similar meditations on outward symbols (pratīka) of Brahman there
arises a doubt, viz. whether in them the symbols are to be thought of as
of the nature of Self or not. The Pūrvapakshin holds the former view.
For, he says, in form those injunctions do not differ from other
injunctions of meditation on Brahman, and Brahman, as we have seen,
constitutes the Self of the meditating Devotee.--This view the Sūtra
sets aside. A pratīka cannot be meditated on as being of the nature of
Self; for the pratīka is not the Self of the meditating Devotee. What,
in those meditations, is to be meditated upon is the pratīka only, not
Brahman: the latter enters into the meditation only as qualifying its
aspect. For by a meditation on a pratīka we understand a meditation in
which something that is not Brahman is viewed under the aspect of
Brahman, and as the pratīka--the object of meditation--is not the Self
of the Devotee it cannot be viewed under that form.--But an objection is
raised here also, it is Brahman which is the real object of meditation;
for where Brahman _may_ be viewed as the object of meditation, it is
inappropriate to assume as objects non-sentient things of small power
such as the mind, and so on. The object of meditation therefore is
Brahman viewed under the aspect of mind, and so on.--This objection the
next Sūtra disposes of.




5. The view of Brahman, on account of superiority.

The view of Brahman may appropriately be superimposed on mind and the
like; but not the view of mind, and so on, on Brahman. For Brahman is
something superior to mind, and so on; while the latter are inferior to
Brahman. To view a superior person, a prince e.g., as a servant would be
lowering; while, on the other hand, to view a servant as a prince is
exalting.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'symbols.'




6. And the ideas of Āditya and the rest on the member; on account of
this being rational.

'He who shines up there let a man meditate on him as the Udgītha' (Ch.
Up. I, 3, 1).--With regard to this and similar meditations connected
with subordinate parts of sacrificial performances there arises the
doubt whether the idea of Āditya and so on has to be superimposed on the
subordinate part of the sacrifice, such as the Udgītha, or vice versā (i.
e. whether Āditya should be meditated upon under the aspect of the
Udgītha, or vice versā).--The Pūrvapakshin holds the former view. For
the general principle is that the lower being should be viewed under the
aspect of the higher, and the Udgītha and so on, which are parts of the
sacrifices through which certain results are effected, are superior to
the divinities who do not accomplish any result.--Of this view the Sūtra
disposes. The ideas of Āditya and so on are to be superimposed on the
'members,' i.e. the Udgītha and so on, which are constituent members of
the sacrifices; because of the gods only superiority can be established.
For it is only through the propitiation of the gods that sacrifices are
capable of bringing about their results. The Udgītha and the rest
therefore are to be viewed under the aspect of Āditya and so on.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the ideas of Āditya and so on.'




7. Sitting; on account of possibility.

It has been shown that that special form of cognitional activity which
the Vedānta-texts set forth as the means of accomplishing final Release
and which is called meditation (dhyāna; upāsana) has to be frequently
repeated, and is of the nature of continued representation. A question
now arises as to the way in which it has to be carried on.--There being
no special restrictive rule, the Pūrvapakshin holds that the Devotee may
carry it on either sitting or lying down or standing or walking.--This
view the Sūtra sets aside. Meditation is to be carried on by the Devotee
in a sitting posture, since in that posture only the needful
concentration of mind can be reached. Standing and walking demand effort,
and lying down is conducive to sleep. The proper posture is sitting on
some support, so that no effort may be required for holding the body up.




8. And on account of meditation.

Since, as intimated by the text,'the Self is to be meditated upon,' the
mental activity in question is of the nature of meditation, it requires
as its necessary condition concentration of mind. For by meditation is
understood thought directed upon one object and not disturbed by the
ideas of other things.




9. And with reference to immobility.

And it is with reference to their immobility that the earth and other
inanimate things--the air, the sky, the waters, the mountains--may be
spoken of as thinking, 'the earth thinks (dhyāyati) as it were,' and so
on. Movelessness hence is characteristic of the intensely meditating
person also, and such movelessness is to be realised in the sitting
posture only.




10. And Smriti texts say the same.

Smriti texts also declare that he only who sits can meditate, 'Having
placed his steady seat upon a pure spot, there seated upon that seat,
concentrating his mind he should practise Yoga' (Bha. Gī. VI, 11-12).




11. Where concentration of mind (is possible), there; on account of
there being no difference.

As the texts do not say anything as to special places and times, the
only requisite of such places and times is that they should favour
concentration of mind. This agrees with the declaration 'Let a man apply
himself to meditation in a level and clean place, &c., favourable to the
mind' (Svet. Up. II, 10).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the
sitting one.'




12. Up to death; for there also it is seen.

The question now arises whether the meditation described which is the
means of final Release is to be accomplished within one day, or to be
continued day after day, until death.--The view that it is accomplished
within one day, as this will satisfy the scriptural injunction, is
disposed of by the Sūtra. Meditation is to be continued until death. For
Scripture declares that meditation has to take place 'there,' i.e. in
the whole period from the first effort after meditation up to death,
'Acting thus as long as life lasts he reaches the world of Brahman.'--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'up to death.'




13. On the attainment of this, there result the non-clinging and the
destruction of later and earlier sins; this being declared.

Having, so far, elucidated the nature of meditation, the Sūtras now
begin to consider the result of meditation. Scripture declares that on
the knowledge of Brahman being attained a man's later and earlier sins
do not cling to him but pass away. 'As water does not cling to a lotus
leaf, so no evil deed clings to him who knows this' (Ch. Up. IV, 14, 3);
'Having known that he is not sullied by any evil deed' (Bri. Up. IV, 4,
23); 'As the fibres of the Ishīkā reed when thrown into the fire are
burnt, thus all his sins are burnt' (Ch. Up. V, 24, 3); 'All his works
perish when He has been beheld who is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8).--
The doubt here arises whether this non-clinging and destruction of all
sins is possible as the result of mere meditation, or not.--It is not
possible, the Pūrvapakshin maintains; for Scripture declares, 'no work
the fruits of which have not been completely enjoyed perishes even in
millions of aeons.' What the texts, quoted above, say as to the non-
clinging and destruction of works occurs in sections complementary to
passages inculcating knowledge as the means of final Release, and may
therefore be understood as somehow meant to eulogize knowledge. Nor can
it be said that knowledge is enjoined as an expiation of sins, so that
the destruction of sins could be conceived as resulting from such
expiation; for knowledge--as we see from texts such as 'He who knows
Brahman reaches the Highest,' 'He knows Brahman and he becomes Brahman'--
is enjoined as a means to reach Brahman. The texts as to the non-
clinging and destruction of sins therefore can only be viewed as
arthavāda passages supplementary to the texts enjoining knowledge of
Brahman.--This view the Sūtra sets aside. When a man reaches knowledge,
the non-clinging and destruction of all sins may be effected through the
power of knowledge. For Scripture declares the power of knowledge to be
such that 'to him who knows this, no evil deed clings,' and so on. Nor
is this in conflict with the text stating that no work not fully enjoyed
perishes; for this latter text aims at confirming the power of works to
produce their results; while the texts under discussion have for their
aim to declare that knowledge when once sprung up possesses the power of
destroying the capability of previously committed sins to produce their
own evil results and the power of obstructing that capability on the
part of future evil actions. The two sets of texts thus refer to
different matters, and hence are not mutually contradictory. There is in
fact no more contradiction between them than there is between the power
of fire to produce heat and the power of water to subdue such heat. By
knowledge effecting the non-clinging of sin we have to understand its
obstructing the origination of the power, on the part of sin, to cause
that disastrous disposition on the part of man which consists in
unfitness for religious works; for sins committed tend to render man
unfit for religious works and inclined to commit further sinful actions
of the same kind. By knowledge effecting the destruction of sin, on the
other hand, we understand its destroying that power of sin after it has
once originated. That power consists, fundamentally, in displeasure on
the part of the Lord. Knowledge of the Lord, which, owing to the supreme
dearness of its object is itself supremely dear, possesses the
characteristic power of propitiating the Lord--the object of knowledge--
and thus destroys the displeasure of the Lord due to the previous
commission of sins on the part of the knowing Devotee; and at the same
time obstructs the origination of further displeasure on the Lord's part,
which otherwise would be caused by sins committed subsequently to the
origination of such knowledge. What Scripture says about sin not
clinging to him who knows can however be understood only with regard to
such sins as spring from thoughtlessness; for texts such as 'he who has
not turned away from evil conduct' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 24) teach that
meditation, becoming more perfect day after day, cannot be accomplished
without the Devotee having previously broken himself off from all evil
conduct.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the reaching of that.'




14. Of the other also there is thus non-clinging; but at death.

It has been said that, owing to knowledge, earlier and subsequent sins
do not cling and are destroyed. The same holds good also with regard to
the other, i.e. to good works--they also, owing to knowledge, do not
cling and are destroyed; for there is the same antagonism between
knowledge and the fruit of those works, and Scripture moreover expressly
declares this. Thus we read, 'Day and night do not pass that bank--
neither good nor evil deeds. All sins turn back from it' (Ch. Up. VIII, 4,
1); 'He shakes off his good and evil deeds' (Kau. Up. I, 4). In the
former of these texts good works are expressly designated as 'sin'
because their fruits also are something not desirable for him who aims
at Release; there is some reason for doing this because after all good
works are enjoined by Scripture and their fruits are desired by men, and
they hence might be thought not to be opposed to knowledge.--But even to
him who possesses the knowledge of Brahman, the fruits of good deeds--
such as seasonable rain, good crops, &c.--are desirable because they
enable him to perform his meditations in due form; how then can it be
said that knowledge is antagonistic to them and destroys them?--Of this
point the Sūtra disposes by means of the clause 'but on death.' Good
works which produce results favourable to knowledge and meditation
perish only on the death of the body (not during the lifetime of the
Devotee).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the other.'




15. But only those former works the effects of which have not yet begun;
on account of that being the term.

A new doubt arises here, viz. whether all previous good and evil works
are destroyed by the origination of knowledge, or only those the effects
of which have not yet begun to operate.--All works alike, the
Pūrvapakshin says; for the texts-as e.g. 'all sins are burned'--declare
the fruits of knowledge to be the same in all cases; and the fact of the
body continuing to exist subsequently to the rise of knowledge may be
accounted for by the force of an impulse once imparted, just as in the
case of the revolution of a potter's wheel.--This view the Sūtra sets
aside. Only those previous works perish the effects of which have not
yet begun to operate; for the text 'For him there is delay as long as he
is not delivered from the body' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2) expressly states
when the delay of the body's death will come to an end (the body
meanwhile continuing to exist through the influence of the
anārabdhakārya works). There is no proof for the existence of an impetus
accounting for the continuance of the body's life, other than the Lord's
pleasure or displeasure caused by--good or evil deeds.--Here terminates
the adhikarana of 'the works the operation of which has not yet begun.'




16. But the Agnihotra and the rest, (because they tend) to that effect
only; this being seen.

It might here be said that special works incumbent on the several
āsramas, as e. g. the Agnihotra, need not be undertaken by those who are
not desirous of their results, since these works also fall under the
category of good works the result of which does not 'cling.'--This view
the Sūtra sets aside. Such works as the Agnihotra must be performed,
since there is no possibility of their results not clinging; for him who
knows, those works have knowledge for their exclusive effect. This we
learn from Scripture itself: 'Him Brāhmanas seek to know by the study of
the Veda, by sacrifices, gifts, austerities, and fasting.' This passage
shows that works such as the Agnihotra give rise to knowledge, and as
knowledge in order to grow and become more perfect has to be practised
day after day until death, the special duties of the āsrama also, which
assist the rise of knowledge, have daily to be performed. Otherwise,
those duties being omitted, the mind would lose its clearness and
knowledge would not arise.--But if good works such as the Agnihotra only
serve the purpose of giving rise to knowledge, and if good works
previous to the rise of knowledge perish, according to the texts 'Having
dwelt there till their works are consumed' (Ch. Up. V, 10, 5) and
'having obtained the end of his deeds' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 6), to what then
applies the text 'His sons enter upon his inheritance, his friends upon
his good works'?--This point is taken up by the next Sūtra.




17. According to some (a class of good works) other than these, of both
kinds.

The text quoted above from one sākhā ('His friends enter upon his good
deeds') refers to good works other than the Agnihotra and the rest, the
only object of which is to give rise to knowledge, viz. to all those
manifold good works, previous or subsequent to the attaining to
knowledge, the results of which are obstructed by other works of greater
strength. Those texts also which declare works not to cling or to be
destroyed through knowledge refer to this same class of works.--The next
Sūtra recalls the fact, already previously established, that the results
of works actually performed may somehow be obstructed.




18. For (there is the text) 'whatever he does with knowledge.'

The declaration made in the text 'whatever he does with knowledge that
is more vigorous,' viz. that the knowledge of the Udgītha has for its
result non-obstruction of the result of the sacrifice, implies that the
result of works actually performed _may_ be obstructed. We thus arrive
at the conclusion that the text of the Sātyāyanins,' his friends enter
upon his good works,' refers to those good works of the man possessing
knowledge the results of which were somehow obstructed (and hence did
not act themselves out during his lifetime, so that on his death they
may be transferred to others).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the
Agnihotra and the rest.'




19. But having destroyed by fruition the other two sets he becomes one
with Brahman.

There now arises the doubt whether the good and evil works other than
those the non-clinging and destruction of which have been declared, that
is to say those works the results of which have begun to act, come to an
end together with that bodily existence in which knowledge of Brahman
originates, or with the last body due to the action of the works last
mentioned, or with another body due to the action of the anārabdhakārya.--
The second of these alternatives is the one to be accepted, for there is
a text declaring that works come to an end with the deliverance of the
Self from the current bodily existence: 'For him there is delay so long
as he is not delivered (from the body), then he will become one with
Brahman' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2).--This view the Sūtra sets aside. Having
destroyed the other good and evil works the results of which had begun
to operate by retributive experience he, subsequently to the termination
of such retributive enjoyment, becomes one with Brahman. If those good
and evil works are such that their fruits may be fully enjoyed within
the term of one bodily existence, they come to an end together with the
current bodily existence; if they require several bodily existences for
the full experience of their results, they come to an end after several
existences only. This being so, the deliverance spoken of in the text
quoted by the Pūrvapakshin means deliverance from those works when
completely destroyed by retributive enjoyment, not deliverance from
bodily existence about which the text says nothing. All those works, on
the other hand, good and evil, which were performed before the rise of
knowledge and the results of which have not yet begun to operate--works
which have gradually accumulated in the course of infinite time so as to
constitute an infinite quantity--are at once destroyed by the might of
the rising knowledge of Brahman. And works performed subsequently to the
rise of such knowledge do not 'cling.' And, as Scripture teaches, the
friends of the man possessing true knowledge take over, on his death,
his good works, and his enemies his evil deeds. Thus there remains no
contradiction.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the destruction of
the others.'




SECOND PĀDA.

1. Speech with mind, on account of this being seen and of scriptural
statement.

The Sūtras now begin an enquiry into the mode of the going to Brahman of
him who knows. At first the soul's departure from the body is considered.
On this point we have the text, 'When a man departs from hence his
speech is combined (sampadyate) with his mind, his mind with his breath,
his breath with fire, fire with the highest deity' (Ch. Up. VI, 6, 1).
The doubt here arises whether the speech's being combined with the mind,
referred to in the text, means that the function of speech only is
merged in mind, or the organ of speech itself.--The Pūrvapakshin holds
the former view; for, he says, as mind is not the causal substance of
speech, the latter cannot be merged in it; while the scriptural
statement is not altogether irrational in so far as the functions of
speech and other organs are controlled by the mind, and therefore may be
conceived as being withdrawn into it.--This view the Sūtra sets aside.
Speech itself becomes combined with mind; since that is seen. For the
activity of mind is observed to go on even when the organ of speech has
ceased to act.--But is this not sufficiently accounted for by the
assumption of the mere function of speech being merged in mind?--To this
the Sūtra replies 'and on account of the scriptural word.' The text says
distinctly that speech itself, not merely the function of speech,
becomes one with the mind. And when the function of speech comes to an
end, there is no other means of knowledge to assure us that the function
only has come to an end and that the organ itself continues to have an
independent existence. The objection that speech cannot become one with
mind because the latter is not the causal substance of speech, we meet
by pointing out that the purport of the text is not that speech is
merged in mind, but only that it is combined or connected with it.




2. And for the same reason all follow after.

Because speech's becoming one with mind means only conjunction with the
latter, not merging within it; there is also no objection to what
Scripture says as to all other organs that follow speech being united
with mind.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'speech.'




3. That mind in breath, owing to the subsequent clause.

That mind, i.e. mind united with all the organs unites itself with
breath; not merely the function of mind. This appears from the clause
following upon the text quoted above, 'mind (unites itself) with breath.'
Here, however, a further doubt suggests itself. The text 'Mind is made
of earth' declares earth to be the causal substance of mind, and the
text 'that (viz. water) sent forth earth' declares water to be the
causal substance of earth; while the further text 'breath is made of
water' shows water to be the causal substance of breath. Considering
therefore that in the text 'mind becomes united with breath' the term
_breath_ is naturally understood to denote the causal substance of
breath, i.e. water, the appropriate sense to be given to the statement
that mind is united with water is that mind is completely refunded into
its own causal substance--so that the 'being united' would throughout be
understood 'as being completely merged.'--The reply to this, however,
is, that the clauses 'Mind is made of food, breath is made of water,'
only mean that mind and breath are nourished and sustained by food and
water, not that food and water are the causal substances of mind and
breath. The latter indeed is impossible; for mind consists of ahamkāra,
and as breath is a modification of ether and other elements, the word
_breath_ may suggest water.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'mind.'




4. That (is united) with the ruler, on account of the going to it, and
so on.

As from the statements that speech becomes united with mind and mind
with breath it follows that speech and mind are united with mind and
breath only; so we conclude from the subsequent clause 'breath with
fire' that breath becomes united with fire only.--Against this primā
facie view the Sūtra declares 'that breath becomes united with the ruler
of the organs, i.e. the individual soul, on account of the going to it,
and so on.' That breath goes to the individual soul, the following text
declares, 'At the time of death all the prānas go to the Self of a man
about to expire' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 38), Similarly Scripture mentions the
departure of prāna together with the soul, 'after him thus departing the
prawa departs'; and again its staying together with the soul, 'What is
that by whose departure I shall depart, and by whose staying I shall
stay?' (Pr. Up. VI, 3). We therefore conclude that the text 'breath with
fire' means that breath joined with the individual soul becomes united
with fire. Analogously we may say in ordinary life that the Yamuna is
flowing towards the sea, while in reality it is the Yamuna joined with
the Gangā which flows on.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the ruler.'




5. With the elements, this being stated by Scripture.

There arises the further question whether breath joined with the soul
unites itself with fire only or with all the elements combined.--With
fire, so much only being declared by Scripture!--This view the Sūtra
sets aside. Breath and soul unite themselves with all the elements; for
Scripture declares the soul, when moving out, to consist of all the
elements--'Consisting of earth, consisting of water, consisting of fire.
'--But this latter text explains itself also on the assumption of breath
and soul unitrng themselves in succession with fire and the rest, one at
a time!--This the next Sūtra negatives.




6. Not with one; for both declare this.

Not with one; because each element by itself is incapable of producing
an effect. Such incapability is declared by Scripture and tradition
alike. The text 'Having entered these beings with this jīva soul let me
reveal names and forms--let me make each of these three tripartite' (Ch.
Up. VI, 3) teaches that the elements were rendered tripartite in order
to be capable of evolving names and forms; and of similar import is the
following Smriti text, 'Possessing various powers these (elements),
being separate from one another, were unable to produce creatures
without combining. But having entered into mutual conjunction they, from
the Mahat down to individual beings, produce the Brahma egg.' From this
it follows that in the clause 'breath is united with fire' the word _fire_
denotes fire mixed with the other elements. Breath and soul therefore
are united with the aggregate of the elements.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the elements.'




7. And it is common up to the beginning of the way; and the immortality
(is that which is obtained), without having burned.

Is this departure of the soul common to him who knows and him who does
not know?--It belongs to him only who does not know, the Pūrvapakshin
holds. For Scripture declares that for him who knows there is no
departure, and that hence he becomes immortal then and there
(irrespective of any departure of the soul to another place), 'when all
desires which once dwelt in his heart are undone, then the mortal
becomes immortal, then he obtains Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 7). This
view the Sūtra sets aside. For him also who knows there is the same way
of passing out up to the beginning of the path, i.e. previously to the
soul's entering the veins. For another text expressly declares that the
soul of him also who knows passes out by way of a particular vein:
'there are a hundred and one veins of the heart; one of them penetrates
the crown of the head; moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality,
the others serve for departing in different directions' (Ch. Up. VIII, 6,
5). Scripture thus declaring that the soul of him who knows passes out
by way of a particular vein, it must of course be admitted that it _does_
pass out; and as up to the soul's entering the vein no difference is
mentioned, we must assume that up to that moment the departure of him
who knows does not differ from that of him who does not know. A
difference however is stated with regard to the stage of the soul's
entering the vein, viz. Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2, 'By that light the Self
departs, either through the eye, or through the skull, or through other
parts of the body.' As this text must be interpreted in agreement with
the text relative to the hundred and one veins, the departure by way of
the head must be understood to belong to him who knows, while the other
modes of departing belong to other persons. The last clause of the Sūtra
'and the immortality, without having burned' replies to what the
Pūrvapakshin said as to the soul of him who knows being declared by
Scripture to attain to immortality then and there. The immortality
referred to in the text 'when all desires of his heart are undone'
denotes that non-clinging and destruction of earlier and later sins
which comes to him who knows, together with the rise of knowledge,
without the connexion of the soul with the body, and the sense-organs
being burned, i.e. dissolved at the time.--'He reaches Brahman' in the
same text means that in the act of devout meditation the devotee has an
intuitive knowledge of Brahman.




8. Since, up to the union with that (i.e. Brahman) the texts describe
the Samsāra state.

The immortality referred to must necessarily be understood as not
implying dissolution of the soul's connexion with the body, since up to
the soul's attaining to Brahman the texts describe the Samsāra state.
That attaining to Brahman takes place, as will be shown further on,
after the soul--moving on the path the first stage of which is light--
has reached a certain place. Up to that the texts denote the Samsāra
state of which the connexion with a body is characteristic. 'For him
there is delay so long as he is not delivered (from the body); then he
will be united' (Ch. Up. VI, 14, 2); 'Shaking off all evil as a horse
shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rāhu;
having shaken off the body I obtain self, made and satisfied, the
uncreated world of Brahman' (VIII, 13).




9. And the subtle (body persists), on account of a means of knowledge,
it being thus observed (in Scripture).

The bondage of him who knows is not, at that stage, dissolved, for this
reason also that the subtle body continues to persist.--How is this
known?--Through a means of knowledge, viz. because it is thus seen in
Scripture. For Scripture states that he who knows, when on the path of
the gods, enters into a colloquy with the moon and others, 'he is to
reply,' &c. (Kau. Up. I, 3 ff.). This implies the existence of a body,
and thence it follows that, at that stage, the subtle body persists. The
state of bondage therefore is not yet dissolved.




10. Hence not in the way of destruction of bondage.

It thus appears that the text 'when all desires which once entered his
heart are undone, then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains
Brahman' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 7), does not mean such immortality as would
imply complete destruction of the state of bondage.




11. And to that very (subtle body) (there belongs) the warmth, this only
being reasonable.

It is observed that when a man is about to die there is some warmth left
in some part or parts of the gross body. Now this warmth cannot really
belong to the gross body, for it is not observed in other parts of that
body (while yet there is no reason why it should be limited to some
part); but it may reasonably be attributed to the subtle body which may
abide in some part of the gross body (and into which the warmth of the
entire gross body has withdrawn itself). We therefore conclude that this
partial perception of warmth is due to the departing subtle body. This
confirms the view laid down in Sūtra 7.--The next Sūtra disposes of a
further doubt raised as to the departure of the soul of him who knows.




12. If it be said that on account of the denial (it is not so); we deny
this. From the embodied soul; for (that one is) clear, according to some.

The contention that the soul of him who knows departs from the body in
the same way as other souls do cannot be upheld, since Scripture
expressly negatives such departure. For Bri. Up. IV, 4, at first
describes the mode of departure on the part of him who does not possess
true knowledge ('He taking to himself those elements of light descends
into the heart' up to 'after him thus departing the Prāna departs');
then refers to his assuming another body ('he makes to himself another,
newer and more beautiful shape'); then concludes the account of him who
does not possess true knowledge ('having attained the end of these works
whatever he does here, he again returns from that world to this world of
action. So much for the man who desires'); and thereupon proceeds
explicitly to deny the departure from the body of him who possesses true
knowledge, 'But he who does not desire, who is without desire, free from
desire, who has obtained his desire, who desires the Self only, of him
(tasya) the prānas do not pass forth,--being Brahman only he goes into
Brahman.' Similarly a previous section also, viz. the one containing the
questions put by Årtabhāga, directly negatives the view of the soul of
him who knows passing out of the body. There the clause 'he again
conquers death' introduces him who knows as the subject-matter, and
after that the text continues: 'Yājńavalkya, he said, when that person
dies, do the prānas pass out of him (asmāt) or not?--No, said
Yājńavalkya, they are gathered up in him (atraiva), he swells, inflated
the dead lies' (Bri. Up. III, 2, 10-11). From these texts it follows
that he who knows attains to immortality _here_ (without his soul
passing out of the body and moving to another place).--This view the
Sūtra rejects. 'Not so; from the embodied soul.' What those texts deny
is the moving away of the prānas from the embodied individual soul, not
from the body. 'Of him (tasya) the prānas do not pass forth'--here the
'of him' refers to the subject under discussion, i.e. the embodied soul
which is introduced by the clause 'he who does not desire,' not to the
body which the text had not previously mentioned. The sixth case (tasya)
here denotes the embodied soul as that which is connected with the
prānas ('the prānas belonging to that, i.e. the soul, do not pass out'),
not as that from which the passing out takes its start.--But why should
the 'tasya' not denote the body as the point of starting ('the prānas
do not pass forth from that (tasya), viz. the body')?--Because, we reply,
the soul which is actually mentioned in its relation of connexion with
the prānas (as indicated by tasya) suggests itself to the mind more
immediately than the body which is not mentioned at all; if therefore
the question arises as to the starting-point of the passing forth of the
prānas the soul is (on the basis of the text) apprehended as that
starting-point also (i.e. the clause 'the prānas of him do not pass
forth' implies at the same time 'the prānas do not pass forth from him,
i.e. from the soul'). Moreover, as the prānas are well known to be
connected with the soul and as hence it would serve no purpose to state
that connexion, we conclude that the sixth case which expresses
connexion in general is here meant to denote the starting-point in
particular. And no dispute on this point is really possible; since
'according to some' it is 'clear' that what the text means to express is
the embodied soul as the starting-point of the prānas. The _some_ are
the Mādhyandinas, who in their text of the Brihad-āranyaka read 'na
tasmāt prāna utkrāmanti'--'the prānas do not pass forth _from _him' (the
'tasya' thus being the reading of the Kānva Sākhā only).--But, an
objection is raised, there is no motive for explicitly negativing the
passing away of the prānas from the soul; for there is no reason to
assume that there should be such a passing away (and the general rule is
that a denial is made of that only for which there is a presumption).--
Not so, we reply. The Chāndogya-text 'For him there is delay only as
long as he is not delivered (from the body); then he will be united'
declares that the soul becomes united with Brahman at the time of its
separation from the body, and this suggests the idea of the soul of him
who knows separating itself at that very time (i.e. the time of death)
from the prānas also. But this would mean that the soul cannot reach
union with Brahman by means of proceeding on the path of the gods, and
for this reason the Brihad-āranyaka ('of him the prānas do not pass
forth') explicitly declares that the prānas do not depart from the soul
of him who knows, before that soul proceeding on the path of the gods
attains to union with Brahman.

The same line of refutation would have to be applied to the arguments
founded by our opponent on the question of Ārtabhāga, if that question
be viewed as referring to him who possesses true knowledge. The fact
however is that that passage refers to him who does _not_ possess that
knowledge; for none of the questions and answers of which the section
consists favours the presumption of the knowledge of Brahman being under
discussion. The matters touched upon in those questions and answers are
the nature of the senses and sense objects viewed as graha and atigraha;
water being the food of fire; the non-separation of the prānas from the
soul at the time of death; the continuance of the fame--there called
_name_--of the dead man; and the attainment, on the part of the soul of
the departed, to conditions of existence corresponding to his good or
evil deeds. The passage immediately preceding the one referring to the
non-departure of the prānas merely means that death is conquered in so
far as it is a fire and fire is the food of water; this has nothing to
do with the owner of true knowledge. The statement that the prānas of
the ordinary man who does not possess true knowledge do not depart means
that at the time of death the prānas do not, like the gross body,
abandon the jīva, but cling to it like the subtle body and accompany it.




13. Smriti also declares this.

Smriti also declares that the soul of him who knows departs by means of
an artery of the head. 'Of those, one is situated above which pierces
the disc of the sun and passes beyond the world of Brahman; by way of
that the soul reaches the highest goal' (Yājń. Smri. III, 167).--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'up to the beginning of the road.'




14. With the Highest; for thus it says.

It has been shown that at the time of departure from the body the soul
together with the organs and prānas unites itself with the subtle
elements, fire and the rest; and the notion that the soul of him who
knows forms an exception has been disposed of. The further question now
arises whether those subtle elements move on towards producing their
appropriate effects, in accordance with the works or the nature of
meditation (of some other soul with which those elements join
themselves), or unite themselves with the highest Self.--The
Pūrvapakshin holds that, as in the case of union with the highest Self,
they could not give rise to their peculiar effects, i.e. the experience
of pleasure and pain, they move towards some place where they can give
rise to their appropriate effects.--Of this view the Sūtra disposes.
They unite themselves with the highest Self; for Scripture declares
'warmth in the highest Being' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 6). And the doings of
those elements must be viewed in such a way as to agree with Scripture.
As in the states of deep sleep and a pralaya, there is, owing to union
with the highest Self, a cessation of all experience of pain and
pleasure; so it is in the case under question also.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'union with the Highest.'




15. Non-division, according to statement.

Is this union with the highest Self to be understood as ordinary
'merging,' i.e. a return on the part of the effected thing into the
condition of the cause (as when the jar is reduced to the condition of a
lump of clay), or as absolute non-division from the highest Self, such
as is meant in the clauses preceding the text last quoted, 'Speech is
merged in mind'? &c.--The former view is to be adopted; for as the
highest Self is the causal substance of all, union with it means the
return on the part of individual beings into the condition of that
causal substance.--This view the Sūtra rejects. Union here means non-
division, i.e. connexion of such kind that those subtle elements are
altogether incapable of being thought and spoken of as separate from
Brahman. This the text itself declares, since the clause 'warmth in the
highest Being' is connected with and governed by the preceding clause
'Speech is merged in mind.' This preceding clause intimates a special
kind of connexion, viz. absolute non-separation, and there is nothing to
prove that the dependent clause means to express something different;
nor is there any reason why at the time of the soul's departure those
elements should enter into the causal condition; nor is there anything
said about their again proceeding from the causal substance in a new
creation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-separation.'




16. A lighting up of the point of the abode of that; having the door
illuminated by that (the soul), owing to the power of its knowledge and
the application of remembrance of the way which is an element of that
(viz. of knowledge), being assisted by him who abides within the heart,
(passes out) by way of the hundred and first artery.

So far it has been shown that, up to the beginning of the journey, the
souls of them as well who possess true knowledge as of those who do not,
pass out of the body in the same way. Now a difference is stated in the
case of those who have true knowledge. We have on this point the
following text: 'There are a hundred and one arteries of the heart; one
of them penetrates the crown of the head; moving upwards by that a man
reaches immortality; the others serve for departing in different
directions' (Ch. Up. VIII, 6, 5). The doubt here arises whether he who
knows departs by this hundred and first artery in the top of the head,
while those who do not know depart by way of the other arteries; or
whether there is no definite rule on this point.--There is no definite
rule, the Pūrvapakshin holds. For as the arteries are many and
exceedingly minute, they are difficult to distinguish, and the soul
therefore is not able to follow any particular one. The text therefore
(is not meant to make an original authoritative statement as to
different arteries being followed by different souls, but) merely refers
in an informal way to what is already settled (viz. by the reason of the
thing), i.e. the casual departure of any soul by any artery.--This view
the Sūtra rejects 'By way of the hundred and first.' The soul of him who
possesses true knowledge departs only by way of the hundred and first
artery in the crown of the head. Nor is that soul unable to distinguish
that particular artcry. For, through the power of his supremely clear
knowledge which has the effect of pleasing the Supreme Person, and
through the application of remembrance of the way--which remembrance is
a part of that knowledge--the soul of him who knows wins the favour of
the Supreme Person who abides within the heart, and is assisted by him.
Owing to this the abode of that, i.e. the heart which is the abode of
the soul, is illuminated, lit up at its tip, and thus, through the grace
of the Supreme Soul, the individual soul has the door (of egress from
the body) lit up and is able to recognise that artery. There is thus no
objection to the view that the soul of him who knows passes out by way
of that particular artery only.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the
abode of that.'




17. Following the rays.

Scripture teaches that the soul of him who knows, after having passed
forth from the heart by way of the hundred and first artery, follows the
rays of the sun and thus reaches the disc of the sun: 'when he departs
from this body he goes upwards by these rays only' (eva) (Ch. Up. VIII,
6, 5). The idea here suggests itself that the going of the soul cannot
be exclusively bound' to those rays, since when a man dies during the
night it _cannot_ follow tae rays of the sun. Hence the text quoted
above can refer only to a part of the actual cases.--This view the Sūtra
rejects. The soul moves upwards, following the rays only; the text
expressly asserting this by means of the 'eva'--which would be out of
place were there any alternative. Nor is there any strength in the
argument that the soul of him who dies at night cannot follow the rays
as there are none. For in summer the experience of heat at night-time
shows that there are present rays then also; while in winter, as
generally in bad weather, that heat is overpowered by cold and hence is
not perceived (although actually present). Scripture moreover states
that the arteries and rays are at all times mutually connected: 'As a
very long highway goes to two villages, so the rays of the sun go to
both worlds, to this one and to the other. They stretch themselves forth
from the sun and enter into these arteries'; they stretch themselves
forth from these arteries and enter into yonder sun' (Ch. Up. VIII, 6,
2).--As thus there are rays at night also, the souls of those who know
reach Brahman by way of the rays only.--Here terminates the adhikarana
of 'the following up the rays.'




18. Should it be said, not in the night; we say, no; because the
connexion persists as long as the body does. Scripture also declares
this.

It is now enquired into whether the soul of him who, while having true
knowledge, dies at night reaches Brahman or not. Although, as solar rays
exist at night, the soul may move on at night also following those rays;
yet, since dying at night is spoken of in the Sūtras as highly
objectionable, we conclude that he who dies at night cannot accomplish
the highest end of man, viz. attainment to Brahman. The Sūtras eulogize
death occurring in daytime and object to death at night-time: 'Day-time,
the bright half of the month and the northern progress of the sun are
excellent for those about to die; the contrary times are unfavourable.'
According to this, their different nature, dying in day-time may be
assumed to lead to a superior state of existence, and dying at night to
an inferior state. He who dies at night cannot therefore ascend to
Brahman.--This view the Sūtra refutes: 'Because, in the case of him who
knows, the connexion with works exists as long as the body does.' This
is to say--since those works which have not yet begun to produce their
results and which are the cause of future inferior states of existence
are destroyed by the contact with knowledge, while at the same time
later works do not 'cling' (also owing to the presence of true
knowledge), and those works which have begun to act come to an end with
the existence of the last body; there is no reason why he who knows
should remain in bondage, and hence he reaches Brahman even if dying at
night-time. Scripture also declares this, 'for him there is delay only
as long as he is not freed from the body, then he will be united.' The
text which praises the advantages of night-time, the light half of the
month, &c., therefore must be understood as referring to those who do
not possess true knowledge.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'night.'




19. For the same reason also during the southern progress of the sun.

The reasoning stated above also proves that the owner of true knowledge
who may happen to die during the southern progress of the sun reaches
Brahman. A further doubt, however, arises here. The text 'He who dies
during the sun's southern progress reaches the greatness of the Fathers
and union with the moon' (Mahānār. Up. 25) declares that he who dies
during the southern progress reaches the moon; and the other text 'when
this ceases they return again the same way' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 16) states
that he returns again to the earth. We further know that Bhīshma and
others, although fully possessing the knowledge of Brahman, put off
their death until the beginning of the northern progress. All this seems
to prove that he who dies during the southern progress does not reach
Brahman.--This doubt we dispose of as follows. Those only who do not
possess true knowledge return from the moon; while he who has such
knowledge does not return even after he has gone to the moon. For a
complementary clause in the Mahānārāyana Up., 'from there he reaches the
greatness of Brahman,' shows that the abode in the moon forms for him,
who having died during the southern progress wishes to reach Brahman, a
mere stage of rest. And even if there were no such complementary passage,
it would follow from the previously stated absence of any reason for
bondage that the going of the wise man's soul to the moon in no way
precludes his reaching Brahman. Bhīshma and others who through the power
of Yoga were able to choose the time of their death put it off until the
beginning of the northern progress in order to proclaim before the world
the excellence of that season and thus to promote pious faith and
practice.--But we also meet with an authoritative statement made with
reference to wise men about to die, as to difference of time of death
being the cause of a man either returning or not returning to this world,
'I will declare at which time the Yogins departing return not, and also
the time at which they return. The sire, the light, the day, the bright
fortnight, the six months of the sun's northern progress--the knowers of
Brahman departing there go to Brahman. The smoke, the night, the dark
fortnight, the six months of the southern progress--the Yogin departing
there having reached the light of the moon returns again. These are held
to be the perpetual paths of the world--the white and the black; by the
one man goes not to return, by the other he returns again' (Bha. Gī.
VIII, 23-26).--To this point the next Sūtra refers.




20. And those two (paths) are, with a view to the Yogins, mentioned as
to be remembered.

The text quoted does not state an injunction for those about to die, of
a special time of death; but there are rather mentioned in it those two
matters belonging to Smriti and therefore to be remembered, viz. the two
paths--the path of the Gods and the path of the Fathers--with a view to
those who know and practise Yoga; the text intimating that Yogins should
daily think of those paths which are included in Yoga meditation. In
agreement herewith the text concludes, 'Knowing these two paths no Yogin
is ever deluded. Hence in all times, O Arjuna, be engaged in Yoga' (Bha.
Gī. VIII, 27). Through the terms 'the fire, the light,' 'the smoke, the
night,' &c. the path of the Gods and the path of the Fathers are
recognised. Where, in the beginning, the text refers to 'the time when,'
the word 'time' must be understood to denote the divine beings ruling
time, since Fire and the rest cannot be time. What the Bha. Gī. aims at
therefore is to enjoin on men possessing true knowledge the remembrance
of that path of the Gods originally enjoined in the text, 'they go to
light' (Ch. Up. IV, 15, 10); not to determine the proper time of dying
for those about to die.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the southern
progress.'




THIRD PĀDA.

1. On the path beginning with light, that being known.

The Sūtras now go on to determine the road which the soul of the wise
man follows, after having--assisted by the Person within the heart--
passed out of the body by way of one particular artery. Now of that road
various accounts are given in Scripture. There is a detailed account in
the Chāndogya. (IV, 15), 'now whether people perform obsequies for him
or not,' &c. Another account is given in the eighth book of the same
Upanishad, 'then he moves upwards by those very rays' (VIII, 6, 5).

The Kaushītakins again give a different account: 'He having reached the
path of the Gods comes to the world of Agni,' &c. (Kau. Up. I, 3).
Different again in the Brihad-āranyaka: 'Those who thus know this and
those who in the forest meditate on faith and the True,' &c. (Bri. Up.
VI, 2, 15). The same Upanishad, in another place (V, 10), gives a
different account: 'When the person goes away from this world he comes
to the wind,' &c.--A doubt here arises whether all these texts mean to
give instruction as to one and the same road--the first stage of which
is light--having to be followed by the soul of the wise man; or whether
they describe different roads on any of which the soul may proceed.--The
Pūrvapakshin holds the latter view; for he says the roads described
differ in nature and are independent one of the other.--This view the
Sūtra disposes of. All texts mean one and the same road only, viz. the
one beginning with light, and the souls proceed on that road only. For
that road is known, i.e. is recognised in all the various descriptions,
although it is, in different texts, described with more or less fulness.
We therefore have to proceed here as in the case of the details (guna)
which are mentioned in different meditations referring to one and the
same object, i.e. we have to combine the details mentioned in different
places into one whole. The two Chāandogya-texts--the one in the
Upakosalavidyā and the one in the Vidyā of the five fires--describe
exactly the same road. And in the Vidyā of the five fires as given in
the Brihad-āranyaka the same road, beginning with light, is also
described, although there are differences in minor points; we therefore
recognise the road described in the Chāndogya. And in the other texts
also we everywhere recognise the divinities of certain stages of the
road, Agni, Āditya, and so on.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that
which begins with light.'




2. From the year to Vāyu; on account of non-specification and
specification.

In their description of the path beginning with light the Chandogas
mention the year between the months and the sun, 'from the months to the
year, from the year to the sun' (Ch. Up. V, 10, 1); while the
Vājasaneyins mention, in that very place, the world of the Gods,'from
the months to the world of the Gods, from the world of the Gods to the
sun' (Bri. Up. VI, 2. 15). Now, as the two paths are identical, we have
to supplement each by the additional item given in the other (and the
question then arises whether the order of the stages be 1. months, 2.
year, 3. world of the Gods, 4. sun; or 1. months, 2. world of the Gods,
3. year, 4. sun). The year and the world of the Gods are equally
entitled--to the place after the months in so far as textual declaration
goes; for both texts say 'from the months.' But we observe that the
advance is throughout from the shorter periods of time to the longer
ones ('from the day to the bright fortnight, from the bright fortnight
to the six months of the northern progress'), and as therefore the year
naturally presents itself to the mind immediately after the six months,
we decide that the order is--months, year, world of the Gods, sun.--In
another place (Bri. Up. V, 10) the Vājasaneyins mention the wind as the
stage preceding the sun ('the wind makes room for him--he mounts upwards;
he comes to the sun'). The Kaushītakins, on the other hand, place the
world of the wind subsequent to light, referred to by them as the world
of Agni ('Having entered on the path of the Gods he comes to the world
of Agni, to the world of the wind,' &c., Kau. Up. I, 3). Now in this
latter text the fact of the world of the wind following upon light is to
be inferred only from the succession of the clauses ('to the world of
Agni'--'to the world of the wind'), while the 'upwards' in the text of
the Vājasaneyins is a direct statement of succession given by the text
itself; and as this latter order of succession has greater force than
the former, we have to place, in the series of stages, the world of Vāyu
directly before the world of the sun. But above we have determined that
the same place (after the year and before the sun) has to be assigned to
the world of the Gods also; and hence a doubt arises whether the world
of the Gods and Vāyu are two different things--the soul of the wise man
passing by them in optional succession--or one and the same thing--the
soul coming, after the year, to Vāyu who is the world of the Gods.--They
are different things, the Pūrvapakshin says; for they are generally
known to be so. And there are definite indications in the text that the
world of the Gods as well as Vāyu is to be placed immediately before the
sun--this being indicated for Vāyu by the 'upwards' referred to above,
and for the world of the Gods by the ablative case (devalokāt) in the
Chānd. text, 'from the world of the Gods he goes to the sun'--and as
thus there is no difference between the two, we conclude that the soul
passes by them in either order it may choose.--This view the Sūtra
negatives: 'From the year to Vāyu.' The soul, having departed from the
year, comes to Vāyu. This is proved 'by non-specification and
specification.' For the term 'the world of the Gods' is a term of
general meaning, and hence can denote Vāyu in so far as being the world
of the Gods; while on the other hand the term Vāyu specifically denotes
that divine being only. The Kaushītakins speak of 'the world of Vāyu';
but this only means 'Vāyu who at the same time is a world.' That Vāyu
may be viewed as the world of the Gods is confirmed by another
scriptural passage, viz. 'he who blows (Vāyu) is the houses of the Gods.
'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'Vāyu.'




3. Beyond lightning there is Varuna, on account of connexion.

According to the text of the Kaushītakins the soul goes on to the world
of Vāyu, to the world of Varuna, to the world of Indra, to the world of
Prajāpati, to the world of Brahman. The doubt here arises whether Varuna
and the divinities of the following stages are to be inserted in the
series after Vāyu, in agreement with the order of enumeration in the
text of the Kaushītakins; or at the end of the whole series as stated in
the Chāndogya. Up. (IV, 15, 5), Varuna thus coming after lightning.--The
decision is in favour of the latter view because Varuna, the god of
waters, is naturally connected with lightning which dwells within the
clouds.--This terminates the adhikarana of 'Varuna.'




4. Conductors, this being indicated.

The decision here is that light, Vāyu, and the rest mentioned in the
texts as connected with the soul's progress on the path of the Gods are
to be interpreted not as mere marks indicating the road, nor as places
of enjoyment for the soul, but as divinities appointed by the Supreme
Person to conduct the soul along the stages of the road; for this is
indicated by what the Chandogya. says with regard to the last stage, viz.
lightning, 'There is a person not human, he leads them to Brahman.' What
here is said as to that person not human, viz. that he leads the soul,
is to be extended to the other beings also, light and the rest.--But if
that not human person leads the souls from lightning to Brahman, what
then about Varuna, Indra, and Prajāpati, who, as was decided above, are
in charge of stages beyond lightning? Do they also lead the soul along
their stages?




5. From thence by him only who belongs to lightning, the text stating
that.

The only leader from lightning up to Brahman is the not-human person
connected with lightning; for the text states this directly. Varuna,
Indra, and Prajāpati take part in the work in so far only as they may
assist the person connected with lightning.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the conductors.'




6. (Him who meditates on) the effected Brahman, (thus opines) Bādari;
because for him going is possible.

The following question now presents itself for consideration. Does the
troop of conducting divinities, Agni and the rest, lead on those who
meditate on the effected Brahman, i.e. Hiranyagarbha; or those only who
meditate on the highest Brahman; or those who meditate on the highest
Brahman and those who meditate on the individual Self as having Brahman
for its Self?--The teacher Bādari is of opinion that the divinities lead
on those only who meditate on the effected Brahman. For he only who
meditates on Hiranyagarbha can move; while a person meditating on the
highest Brahman which is absolutely complete, all-knowing, present
everywhere, the Self of all, cannot possibly be conceived as moving to
some other place in order to reach Brahman; for him Brahman rather is
something already reached. For him the effect of true knowledge is only
to put an end to that Nescience which has for its object Brahman, which,
in reality, is eternally reached. He, on the other hand, who meditates on
Hiranyagarbha may be conceived as moving in order to reach his object,
which is something abiding within a special limited place. It is he
therefore who is conducted on by Agni and the other escorting deities.




7. And on account of (Brahman) being specified.

The text 'a person not human leads them to the worlds of Brahman' (Bri.
Up. VI. 2, 15) by using the word 'world,' and moreover in the plural,
determines the specification that the not-human person leads those only
who meditate on Hiranyagarbha, who dwells within some particular world.
Moreover, the text 'I enter the hall of Prajāpati, the house' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 14) shows that he who goes on the path beginning with light aims
at approaching Hiranyagarbha. But if this is so, there is a want of
appropriate denotation in the clause, 'There is a person not human, he
leads them to Brahman'; if Hiranyagarbha is meant, the text should say
'He leads them to Brahmā (Brahmānam).'




8. But on account of nearness there is that designation.

Hiranyagarbha is the first created being (as declared by the text 'he
who creates Brahma'); he thus stands near to Brahman, and therefore may
be designated by the same term (viz. Brahman). This explanation is
necessitated by the reasons set forth in the preceding Sūtras (which
show that the real highest Brahman cannot be meant).--But, if the soul
advancing on the path of the Gods reaches Hiranyagarbha only, texts such
as 'This is the path of the Gods, the path of Brahman; those who proceed
on that path do not return to the life of man' (Ch. Up. IV, 15, 6), and
'moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality' (VIII, 6, 6), are
wrong in asserting that that soul attains to immortality and does not
return; for the holy books teach that Hiranyagarbha, as a created being,
passes away at the end of a dviparārdha-period; and the text 'Up to the
world of Brahman the worlds return again' (Bha. Gī. VIII, 16) shows that
those who have gone to Hiranyagarbha necessarily return also.




9. On the passing away of the effected (world of Brahma), together with
its ruler, (the souls go) to what is higher than that; on account of
scriptural declaration.

On the passing away of the effected world of Brahma, together with its
ruler Hiranyagarbha, who then recognises his qualification for higher
knowledge, the soul also which had gone to Hiranyagarbha attains to true
knowledge and thus reaches Brahman, which is higher than that, i.e.
higher than the effected world of Brahmā. This is known from the texts
declaring that he who proceeds on the path of light reaches immortality
and does not return; and is further confirmed by the text, 'They all,
reaching the highest immortality, become free in the world of Brahman
(Brahmā) at the time of the great end' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 6).




10. And on account of Smriti.

This follows from Smriti also, which declares 'when the pralaya has come
and the end of the Highest, they all together with Brahman enter the
highest place.'--For all these reasons Bādari holds that the troop of
the conducting deities, beginning with Light, leads the souls of those
only who meditate on the effected Brahman, i e. Hiranyagarbha.




11. The Highest, Jaimini thinks; on account of primariness of meaning.

The teacher Jaimini is of opinion that those deities lead on the souls
of those only who meditate on the highest Brahman. For in the text 'a
person not human leads them to Brahman' the word Brahman is naturally
taken in its primary sense (i.e. the highest Brahman); the secondary
sense (i.e. the effected Brahman) can be admitted only if there are
other valid reasons to refer the passage to the effected Brahman. And
the alleged impossibility of the soul's going is no such valid reason;
for although Brahman no doubt is present everywhere, Scripture declares
that the soul of the wise frees itself from Nescience only on having
gone to some particular place. That the origination of true knowledge
depends on certain conditions of caste, āsrama, religious duty, purity
of conduct, time, place, and so on, follows from certain scriptural
texts, as e.g. 'Brāhmanas desire to know him through the study of the
Veda' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22); in the same way it follows from the text
declaring the soul's going to Brahman that the final realisation of that
highest knowledge which implies the cessation of all Nescience depends
on the soul's going to some particular place. The arguments founded on
texts alleged to declare that the soul of the wise does not pass out of
the body at all we have refuted above. The argument that the
specification implied in the text which mentions _Brahman-worlds_
clearly points to the effected Brahman, i.e. Hiranyagarbha, is equally
invalid. For the compound 'the Brahman-world' is to be explained as'the
world which is Brahman'; just as according to the Pūrva Mīmāmsā the
compound 'Nishāda-sthapati' denotes a sthapati who is a Nishāda (not a
sthapati of the Nishādas). A thing even which is known as one only may
be designated by a plural form, as in a mantra one girdle is spoken of
as 'the fetters of Aditi.' And as to the case under discussion, we know
on the authority of Scripture, Smriti, Itihāsa, and Purāna, that the
wonderful worlds springing from the mere will of a perfect and
omnipresent being cannot be but infinite.




12. And because Scripture declares it.

And Scripture moreover directly declares that the soul which has
departed by way of the artery in the upper part of the head and passed
along the path of the Gods reaches the highest Brahman: 'This serene
being having risen from the body, having reached the highest light
manifests itself in its own shape' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3).--Against the
contention that the text 'I enter the hall of Prajāpati, the house'
shows that he who proceeds on the path beginning with light aims at the
effected Brahman, the next Sūtra argues.




13. And there is no aiming at the effected (Brahman).

The aim of the soul is not at Hiranyagarbha, but at the highest Brahman
itself. For the complementary sentence 'I am the glorious among
Brāhmanas' shows that what the soul aims at is the condition of the
universal Self, which has for its antecedent the putting off of all
Nescience. For this appears from the preceding text, 'As a horse shakes
his hairs and as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rāhu; having
shaken off the body may I obtain--the uncreated Brahman-world' declares
that the Brahman-world, which is the thing to be reached, is something
non-created, and explicitly states that reaching that world implies
freedom from all bondage whatsoever.--It is for these reasons that
Jaimini holds that the deities speeding the soul on its way lead on him
only who has the highest Brahman for the object of his meditation.




Now the Reverend Bādarāyana declares his own view, which constitutes the
final conclusion in this matter.

14. Those not depending on symbols he leads, thus Bādarāyana thinks;
there being a defect in both cases; and he whose thought is that.

Bādarāyana is of opinion that the deities lead those not depending on
symbols, i.e. all meditating devotees other than those depending on
symbols. That is to say, the view that those are led who meditate on the
effected Brahman cannot be upheld; nor is there an exclusive rule that
those only should be led on who meditate on the highest Brahman. The
truth is that those are led who meditate on the highest Brahman, and
also those who meditate on the Self (soul) as different from matter
(Prakriti) and having Brahman for its true Self. Souls of both these
kinds are led on to Brahman. Those on the other hand whose object of
meditation is such things as name and so on, which fall within what is a
mere effect of Brahman--such things being viewed either under the aspect
of Brahman, just as some valiant man may be viewed under the aspect of a
lion (which view expresses itself in the judgment 'Devadatta is a lion
'); or by themselves (without reference to Brahman)--all those are not
led on to Brahman. Why so?' Because there is a defect in both cases,' i.
e. in both the views rejected by Bādarāyana. The view that those are led
who meditate on the effected Brahman is in conflict with texts such as
'having risen from this body and reached the highest light' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 12, 3)--for the nature of the fruit depends on the nature of the
meditation; and the view that those only are led to the highest Brahman
who meditate on the highest Brahman, would stultify texts such as the
one which expressly declares Agni and the rest of the deities to lead on
those who possess the knowledge of the five fires ('Those who know this,
viz. the Vidyā of the five fires, and those who in the forest meditate
on faith and austerity go to light--there is a person not human, he
leads them to Brahman,' Ch. Up. V, 10). Both these views thus being
defective, we adhere to the conclusion that the deities lead on to
Brahman the two classes of souls mentioned above.--This the Sūtra
further declares in the words 'he whose thought is that' (tatkratuh),
the sense of which is that he whose thought is that reaches that, i.e.
that the nature of what is reached depends on the nature of the
meditation. This argument is founded on the text, 'According to what his
thought is (yathā-kratuh) in this world, so will he be when he has
departed this life' (Ch. Up. III, 14), which implies the principle that
what a soul after death attains is according to its thought and
meditation in this life; and moreover we have direct scriptural
statements to the effect that those who possess the knowledge of the
five fires proceed on the path of the Gods, and that those who proceed
on that path reach Brahman and do not return. Analogous reasoning proves
that meditation on the soul as free from matter and having Brahman for
its true Self also leads to the highest Brahman. In the case of those,
on the other hand, who rely on the symbols (in which they meditatively
contemplate Brahman), beginning with name and terminating with prāna.
('He who meditates on name as Brahman,' Ch. Up. VII, 1 ff.), the
meditation is not proved by texts of the two kinds previously mentioned
to lead to Brahman; it rather is contaminated by an element not of the
nature of intelligence, and hence--according to the principle that the
result of a meditation is the same in nature as the meditation itself--
the soul of the inferior devotee practising such meditation does not
proceed by the path of light and does not reach Brahman.--That this
distinction is declared by Scripture itself, the next Sūtra shows.




15. And Scripture declares the difference.

The text, 'He who meditates on name as Brahman, for him there is
movement as he wishes as far as name extends,' &c. (Ch. Up. VII, 1 ff.),
declares that those who meditate on the series of symbols beginning with
name and ending with prāna attain to a result of limited nature and not
depending on any particular path. Those therefore who meditate on the
Intelligent either as mixed with the Non-intelligent or by itself,
viewing it either under the aspect of Brahman or as separated from
Brahman, are not led on by the conducting deities. On the other hand, it
remains a settled conclusion that the deities speed on their way those
who meditate on the highest Brahman and on the soul as separated from
Prakriti and having Brahman for its true Self.--Here terminates the
adhikarana of 'the effected.'




FOURTH PĀDA.

1. (On the soul's) having approached (the highest light) there is
manifestation; (as we infer) from the word 'own.'

The Sūras now proceed to consider the _kind_ of superior existence
(aisvarya) which the released souls enjoy.--The text says, 'Thus does
that serene being, having risen from the body and having approached the
highest light, manifest itself in its own form' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3).
Does this passage mean that the soul having approached the highest light
assumes a new body, to be brought about then, as e.g. the body of a deva;
or that it only manifests its own natural character?--The text must be
understood in the former sense, the Pūrvapakshin holds. For otherwise
the scriptural texts referring to Release would declare what is of no
advantage to man. We do not observe that its own nature is of any
advantage to the soul. In the state of dreamless sleep the body and the
sense-organs cease to act, and you may say the pure soul then abides by
itself, but in what way does this benefit man? Nor can it be said that
mere cessation of pain constitutes the well-being of the soul which has
approached the highest light, and that in this sense manifestation of
its own nature may be called Release; for Scripture clearly teaches that
the released soul enjoys an infinity of positive bliss, 'One hundred
times the bliss of Prajāpati is one bliss of Brahman and of a sage free
from desires'; 'for having tasted a flavour he experiences bliss' (Taitt.
Up. II, 7). Nor can it be said that the true nature of the soul is
consciousness of the nature of unlimited bliss which, in the Samsāra
condition, is hidden by Nescience and manifests itself only when the
soul reaches Brahman. For, as explained previously, intelligence which
is of the nature of light cannot be hidden; hiding in that case would be
neither more nor less than destruction. Nor can that which is mere light
be of the nature of bliss; for bliss is pleasure, and to be of the
nature of pleasure is to be such as to agree with the Self. But, if the
Self is mere light, where is the being by which light is to be
apprehended as agreeable to its own nature? (i.e. where is the knowing
subject conscious of bliss?) He, therefore, who holds the Self to be
mere light, can in no way prove that it is of the nature of bliss. If,
moreover, that which the soul effects on approaching the highest light
is merely to attain to its own true nature, we point out that that
nature is something eternally accomplished, and that hence the
declaration that 'it manifests (accomplishes) itself in its own nature'
would be purportless. We hence conclude that on approaching the highest
light the soul connects itself with a new form only then brought about.
On this view the term 'accomplishes itself is taken in its direct sense,
and the expression 'in its own shape' also is suitable in so far as the
soul accomplishes itself in a nature specially belonging to it and
characterised by absolute bliss.--This view the Sūtra rejects. That
special condition into which the soul passes on having, on the path of
the Gods, approached the highest light is a manifestation of its own
true nature, not an origination of a new character. For this is proved--
by the specification implied in the term 'own,' in the phrase 'in its
own nature.' If the soul assumed a new body, this specification would be
without meaning; for, even without that, it would be clear that the new
body belongs to the soul.--Against the assertion that the soul's own
true nature is something eternally accomplished, and that hence a
declaration of that nature 'accomplishing itself would be unmeaning, the
next Sūtra declares itself.




2. The released one; on account of the promise.

What the text says about the soul accomplishing itself in its own form
refers to the released soul which, freed from its connexion with works
and what depends thereon, i.e. the body and the rest, abides in its true
essential nature.--That essential nature no doubt is something eternally
accomplished, but as in the Samsāra state it is obscured by Nescience in
the form of Karman; the text refers to the cessation of such obscuration
as 'accomplishment.'--How is this known?--'From the promise,'i.e. from
the fact that the text promises to set forth such cessation. For
Prajāpati when saying again and again, 'I will explain that further to
you,' does so with a view to throw light on the individual soul--first
introduced in the clause 'that Self which is free from sin, &c.' (VIII,
7, 1)--in so far as freed from all connexion with the three empirical
conditions of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep, and released from
the body which is due to Karman and the cause of joy and sorrow. When,
therefore, he concludes 'that serene being, i.e. the soul, having risen
from this body and having approached the highest light accomplishes
itself in its true form,' we understand that such 'accomplishment' means
the final release, i.e. the cessation of all bondage, which is gained by
the soul, previously connected with Karman, as soon as it approaches the
highest light.--The Pūrvapakshin had said that as in the state of deep
sleep the manifestation of the true nature of the soul is seen in no way
to benefit man, Scripture, if declaring that Release consists in a
manifestation of the true nature of the soul, would clearly teach
something likewise not beneficial to man; and that hence the
'accomplishment in its own form' must mean the soul's entering on such a
new condition of existence as would be a cause of pleasure, viz. the
condition of a deva or the like. To this the next Sūtra replies.




3. The Self, on account of subject-matter.

The subject-matter of the whole section shows that by the Self
manifesting itself in its own form there is meant the Self as possessing
the attributes of freedom from all evil and sin and so on. For the
teaching of Prajāpati begins as follows: 'the Self which is free from
sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst,
whose desires and thoughts spontaneously realise themselves.' And that
this Self which forms the subject-matter of the entire section is the
individual Self we have shown under I, 3, 19. The manifestation of the
true nature of the soul when reaching the highest light therefore means
the manifestation of that Self which has freedom from sin and so on for
its essential attributes-that nature being in the Samsāra state obscured
through Nescience. When therefore at the moment of Release those
essential qualities assert themselves, the case is one of manifestation
of what already exists, not one of origination. Thus the reverend
Saunaka says, 'As the lustre of the gem is not created by the act of
polishing, so the essential intelligence of the Self is not created by
the putting off of imperfections. As the well is not the cause of the
production of rain water, but only serves to manifest water which
already exists--for whence should that originate which is not?--thus
knowledge and the other attributes of the Self are only manifested
through the putting off of evil qualities; they are not produced, for
they are eternal.' Intelligence, therefore, bliss, and the other
essential qualities of the soul which were obscured and contracted by
Karman, expand and thus manifest themselves when the bondage due to
Karman passes away and the soul approaches the highest light. On this
view of 'manifestation' there remains no difficulty.--Here terminates
the adhikarana of 'on approaching manifestation.'




4. In non-division; because that is seen.

Is the soul, when it has reached the highest light and freed itself from
all bondage, conscious of itself as separate from the highest Self or as
non-separate in so far as being a mere 'mode' (prakāra) of that Self?--
The former view is the right one. For Scriptural and Smriti texts alike
declare that the released soul stands to the highest Self in the
relation of fellowship, equality, equality of attributes, and all this
implies consciousness of separation. Compare 'He attains all desires
together with the all-knowing Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'When the
seer sees the shining maker, the Lord, the Person who has his source in
Brahman; then, possessing perfect knowledge, and shaking off good and
evil, free from all passions he reaches the highest equality' (Mu. Up.
III, 1, 3); 'Taking their stand upon this knowledge they, attaining to
an equality of attributes with me, are neither born at the time of a
creation nor are they agitated when a pralaya takes place' (Bha. Gī. XIV,
2).--Against this view the Sūtra declares itself 'in non-division.' The
released soul is conscious of itself as non-divided from the highest
Brahman. 'For this is seen,' i.e. for the soul having reached Brahman
and freed itself from the investment of Nescience sees itself in its
true nature. And this _true nature_ consists herein that the souls have
for their inner Self the highest Self while they constitute the body of
that Self and hence are _modes_ (prakāra) of it. This is proved by all
those texts which exhibit the soul and Brahman in co-ordination--'Thou
art that' 'this Self is Brahman'; 'In that all this has its Self'; 'All
this in truth is Brahman'; and by other texts, such as 'He who dwells
within the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the
body,' &c.; and 'He who abides within, the ruler of creatures, he is thy
Self; as explained by us under Sūtra I, 4, 22. The consciousness of the
released soul therefore expresses itself in the following form: 'I am
Brahman, without any division.' Where the texts speak of the soul's
becoming equal to, or having equal attributes with, Brahman, the meaning
is that the nature of the individual soul--which is a mere mode of
Brahman--is equal to that of Brahman, i.e. that on putting off its body
it becomes equal to Brahman in purity. The text declaring that the soul
'attains all its desires together with Brahman' intimates that the soul,
together with Brahman of which it is a mode, is conscious of the
attributes of Brahman. The different texts are thus in no conflict. Nor,
on this view of the soul being non-divided from Brahman in so far as
being its mode, is there any difficulty on account of what is said about
the soul under Sū. IV, 4, 8; or on account of the doctrines conveyed in
II, 1, 22; III, 4, 8.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-division,
on account of its being seen.'




5. In (a nature like) that of Brahman, thus Jaimini thinks; on account
of suggestion and the rest.

Owing to the fact that different texts give different accounts, the
question now arises of what character that essential nature of the Self
is in which it manifests itself on reaching Brahman. Is that nature
constituted by freedom from evil and sin and the rest (i.e. the
attributes enumerated Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 1); or by mere intelligence
(vijńāna); or by both, there being no opposition between intelligence
and those other attributes?--The teacher Jaimini holds that the soul
manifests itself in its Brahman character, i.e. in a character
constituted by freedom from sin, and so on. These latter attributes are,
in the text of the 'small lotus,' mentioned as belonging to Brahman (Ch.
Up. VIII, 1, 5), and may hence be referred to as the 'Brahman' character.
And that this Brahman character is the character of the released soul
also follows from 'suggestion and the rest.' For freedom from all evil
and the rest are, in the teaching of Prajāpati, referred to as
attributes of the soul (VIII, 7, 1). The 'and the rest' of the Sūtra
refers to the activities of the released soul--laughing, playing,
rejoicing, and so on (mentioned in VIII, 12, 3)--which depend on the
power belonging to the soul in that state to realise all its ideas and
wishes. It is for these reasons that Jaimini holds that mere
intelligence does not constitute the true nature of the released soul.




6. In the sole nature of intelligence; as that is its Self. Thus
Audulomi thinks.

Intelligence (consciousness; kaitanya) alone is the true nature of the
soul, and hence it is in that character only that the released soul
manifests itself; this is the view of the teacher Audulomi. That
intelligence only constitutes the true being of the soul, we learn from
the express statement 'As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside,
but is altogether a mass of taste; so this Self has neither inside nor
outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 13).
When, therefore, the text attributes to the soul freedom from evil and
the rest, it does not mean to predicate of it further positive qualities,
but only to exclude all the qualities depending on avidyā--change,
pleasure, pain, and so on--For these reasons Audulomi holds that the
released soul manifests itself as mere intelligence.--Next the teacher
Bādarāyana determines the question by propounding his own view.




7. Thus also, on account of existence of the former qualities (as
proved) by suggestion, Bādarayana holds absence of contradiction.

The teacher Bādarāyana is of opinion that even thus, i.e. although the
text declares the soul to have mere intelligence for its essential
nature, all the same the previously stated attributes, viz. freedom from
all sin, and so on, are not to be excluded. For the authority of a
definite statement in the Upanishads proves them to exist ('That Self
which is free from sin,' &c.); and of authorities of equal strength one
cannot refute the other. Nor must you say that the case is one of
essential contradiction, and that hence we necessarily must conclude
that freedom from sin, and so on (do not belong to the true nature of
the soul, but) are the mere figments of Nescience (from which the
released soul is free). For as there is equal authority for both sides,
why should the contrary view not be held? (viz. that the soul is
essentially free from sin, &c., and that the kaitanya is non-essential.)
For the principle is that where two statements rest on equal authority,
that only which suffers from an intrinsic impossibility is to be
interpreted in a different way (i.e. different from what it means on the
face of it), so as not to conflict with the other. But while admitting
this we deny that the text which describes the Self as a mass of mere
knowledge implies that the nature of the Self comprises nothing whatever
but knowledge.--But what then is the purport of that text?--The meaning
is clear, we reply; the text teaches that the entire Self, different
from all that is non-sentient, is self-illumined, i.e. not even a small
part of it depends for its illumination on something else. The fact,
vouched for in this text, of the soul in its entirety being a mere mass
of knowledge in no way conflicts with the fact, vouched for by other
texts, of its possessing qualities such as freedom from sin and so on,
which inhere in it as the subject of those qualities; not any more than
the fact of the lump of salt being taste through and through--which fact
is known through the sense of taste--conflicts with the fact of its
possessing such other qualities as colour, hardness, and so on, which
are known through the eye and the other sense-organs. The meaning of the
entire text is as follows--just as the lump of salt has throughout one
and the same taste, while other sapid things such as mangoes and other
fruit have different tastes in their different parts, rind and so on; so
the soul is throughout of the nature of knowledge or self-illuminedness.--
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that which is like Brahman.'




8. By the mere will; Scripture stating that.

Concerning the released soul Scripture states, 'He moves about there,
laughing, playing, rejoicing, be it with women, or chariots, or
relatives' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 3). The doubt here arises whether the
soul's meeting with relatives and the rest presupposes an effort on its
part or follows on its mere will--as things spring from the mere will of
the highest Person.--An effort is required; for we observe in ordinary
life that even such persons as kings and the like who are capable of
realising all their wishes do not accomplish the effects desired without
some effort.--Against this view the Sūtra says 'by the mere will.' For,
in a previous passage, Scripture expressly says, 'He who desires the
world of the Fathers, by his mere will the Fathers rise to receive him,'
&c. (VIII, 2, 1). And there is no other text declaring the need of effort
which would oblige us to define and limit the meaning of the text last
quoted.




9. And for this very reason without another ruler.

Since the released soul realises all its wishes, it does not stand under
another ruler. For to be under a ruler means to be subject to injunction
and prohibition, and to be such is opposed to being free in the
realisation of all one's wishes. Hence Scripture says, 'he is a Self-
ruler' (Ch. Up. VII, 25).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'wishes.'




10. The absence, Bādari holds; for thus Scripture says.

A doubt arises whether the Released has a body and sense-organs, or not;
or whether he has them or not just as he pleases. The teacher Bādari
holds that body and sense-organs are absent; since the text declares
this. The text--'as long as he is embodied there is no freedom from
pleasure and pain; but when he is free from the body then neither
pleasure nor pain touches him' (Ch. Up. VIII, 12, 1)--declares that
pleasure and pain are necessarily connected with embodiedness; and the
text--'having risen from this body and reached the highest light he
manifests himself in his own shape' (VIII, 12, 3)--declares that the
Released one is without a body.




11. The presence, Jaimini holds; because the text declares manifoldness.

The teacher Jaimini holds that the Released one has a body and senses;
because the text declares manifoldness--'He is onefold, he is threefold,
he is fivefold, he is sevenfold' (Ch. Up. VII, 26, 2). The Self which is
one and indivisible cannot be manifold, and the various forms of
manifoldness of which the text speaks therefore must depend on the body.
The text which speaks of the absence of a body refers to the absence of
that body only which is due to Karman; for this latter body only is the
cause of pleasure and pain. Next the Reverend Bādarāyana decides this
point by the declaration of his own view.




12. For this reason Bādarāyana (holds him to be) of both kinds; as in
the case of the twelve days' sacrifice.

'For this reason,' i.e. for the reason that the text refers to the wish
of the Released, the Reverend Bādarāyana is of opinion that the Released
may, at his liking, be with or without a body. This satisfies both kinds
of texts. The case is analogous to that of the twelve days' sacrifice
which, on the basis of twofold texts--'Those desirous of prosperity are
to celebrate the dvādasāha,' and 'The priest is to offer the dvādasāha
for him who desires offspring'--belongs, according to difference of wish,
either to the sattra or the ahīna class of sacrifices.--The next Sūtra
declares that the body and the sense-organs of the Released are not
necessarily created by the Released himself.




13. In the absence of a body, as in the state of dream; that being
possible.

As in the absence of a body and other instruments of enjoyment created
by himself, the Released may undergo experiences of pleasure by means of
instruments created by the highest Person, the Released, although
capable of realising all his wishes, may not himself be creative. As in
the state of dream the individual soul has experiences depending on
chariots and other implements created by the Lord ('He creates chariots,
horses,' &c., Bri. Up. IV, 3, 10); thus the released soul also may have
experience of different worlds created by the Lord engaged in playful
sport.




14. When there is a body, as in the waking state.

When, on the other hand, the released soul possesses a body created by
its own will, then it enjoys its various delights in the same way as a
waking man does.--In the same way as the highest Person creates out of
himself, for his own delight, the world of the Fathers and so on; so he
sometimes creates such worlds for the enjoyment of the released souls.
But sometimes, again, the souls using their own creative will-power
themselves create their own worlds, which however are included within
the sphere of sport of the highest Person (so that the souls in enjoying
them do not pass beyond the intuition of Brahman).

But it has been taught that the soul is of atomic size; how then can it
connect itself with many bodies?--To this question the next Sūtra
replies.




15. The entering is as in the case of a lamp; for thus Scripture
declares.

Just as a lamp, although abiding in one place only, enters through the
light proceeding from it into connexion with many places; so the soul
also, although limited to one place, may through its light-like
consciousness enter into several bodies. It may do this as well as in
this life the soul, although abiding in one spot of the body only, viz.
the heart, pervades the whole body by means of its consciousness and
thus makes it its own. There is however the following difference between
the two cases. The non-released soul has its intellectual power
contracted by the influence of Karman, and hence is incapable of that
expansive pervasion without which it cannot identify itself with other
bodies. The released soul, on the other hand, whose intellectual power
is non-contracted is capable of extending as far as it likes, and thus
to make many bodies its own. For Scripture declares, 'That living soul
is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair
divided a hundred times, and yet it is capable of infinity' (Svet. Up. V,
9). The non-released soul is ruled by Karman, the released one only by
its will--this is the difference.--But, a new difficulty is raised,
Scripture declares that when the soul reaches Brahman all its inner and
outer knowledge is stopped: 'Embraced by the highest Self the soul knows
nothing that is without, nothing that is within' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 21).
How then can it be said to know all things?--To this the next Sūtra
replies.




16. It refers either to dreamless sleep or to union (sampatti); for this
is manifested.

Texts as the one last quoted do not refer to the released soul, but
either to deep sleep or to 'union' (sampatti), i.e. the time of dying;
the latter in accordance with the text 'then his speech is united
(sampadyate) with his mind,--heat with the highest divinity' (Ch. Up. VI,
15, 1). In both those states the soul attains to the highest Self and is
unconscious. That in the states of deep sleep and dying the soul is
unconscious and that the released soul is all-knowing, Scripture reveals.
The text 'In truth he thus does not know himself that he is I, nor does
he know anything that exists. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see no
good in this' (Ch. Up. VIII, 11, 1) declares that the soul is
unconscious in the state of deep sleep; and a subsequent text in the
same section declares the released soul to be all-knowing, 'He seeing
these pleasures with the divine eye, i.e. the mind, rejoices' (VIII, 12,
5). The same is clearly stated in the text,'He who sees this sees
everything, and obtains everything everywhere' (VII, 2, 6, 2). That at
death there is unconsciousness appears from the text, 'having risen from
these elements he vanishes again in them. When he has departed there is
no more knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 13). From all this it follows that
the text as to the soul being held in embrace by the prājńa Self refers
either to deep sleep or death.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-
being.'




17. With the exception of world-energy; on account of leading subject-
matter and of non-proximity.

The doubt here presents itself whether the power of the released soul is
a universal power such as belongs to the Supreme Person, extending to
the creation, sustentation, and so on, of the worlds; or is limited to
the intuition of the Supreme Person.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the
former view. For he says Scripture declares that the soul reaches
equality with the Supreme Person: 'Free from stain he reaches the
highest equality' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3); and moreover Scripture ascribes
to the released soul the power of realising all its thoughts. And these
two conditions are not fulfilled unless the soul possess the special
powers of the Lord with regard to the government, &c., of the world.--To
this the Sūtra replies, 'with the exception of world-energy.' The
released soul, freed from all that hides its true nature, possesses the
power of intuitively beholding the pure Brahman, but does not possess
the power of ruling and guiding the different forms of motion and rest
belonging to animate and inanimate nature.--How is this known?--'From
subject-matter.' For it is with special reference to the highest Brahman
only that the text mentions ruling and controlling power over the entire
world. 'That from whence these beings are born, that through which they
live when born, that into which they enter at death, endeavour to know
that; that is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 1, 1). If such universal ruling
and controlling power belonged to the released soul as well, it would
not be used--as the text actually uses it--for defining Brahman; for all
definition rests on special individual attributes. Analogously many
other texts speak of universal ruling and controlling power with
exclusive reference to the Supreme Person--'Being only this was in the
beginning, &c.--it thought, may I be many' (Ch. Up. VI, 2); 'In the
beginning this was Brahman, one only--it created the most excellent
Kshattra,' &c. (Bri. Up. I, 4, 11); 'In the beginning all this was Self,
one only--it thought, let me send forth these worlds' (Ait. Ār. II, 4, 1,
1); 'There was Narayana alone, not Brahmā, and so on.' 'He who dwelling
within the earth,' &c. (Bri. Up. III, 7, 3).--This also follows 'from
non-proximity'; for in all those places which speak of world-controlling
power the context in no way suggests the idea of the released soul, and
hence there is no reason to ascribe such power to the latter.




18. If it be said that this is not so, on account of direct teaching; we
reply not so, on account of the texts declaring that which abides within
the spheres of those entrusted with special functions.

But, an objection is raised, certain texts directly declare that the
released soul also possesses 'world-energy.' Compare 'He becomes a self-
ruler; he moves in all worlds according to his wishes' (Ch. Up. VII, 25,
2); 'He moves through these worlds, enjoying any food he wishes, and
assuming any shape he wishes' (Taitt. Up. III, 10, 5). We cannot
therefore accept the restriction laid down in the last Sūtra.--Not so,
the latter half of the present Sūtra declares, 'on account of the texts
declaring that which abides in the spheres of those entrusted with
special functions.' The meaning of the texts quoted is that the released
soul participates in the enjoyments connected with the spheres of
Hiranyagarbha and other beings which are entrusted with special
functions. The soul whose knowledge is no longer obstructed by Karman
freely enjoys all the different worlds in which the power of Brahman
manifests itself and thus is fully satisfied.--But if the released soul,
no less than the soul implicated in the Samsāra, experiences enjoyments
belonging to the sphere of change, it follows that the sum of its
enjoyments is finite and limited, and that hence the released soul is no
better off than the soul in the state of bondage!--Of this doubt the
next Sūtra disposes.




19. That which is not within change; for thus Scripture declares the
abiding (of the soul).

That which is not within change, i.e. the highest Brahman which is free
from all change and of an absolutely perfect and blessed nature--this,
together with the manifestations of its glory, is what forms the object
of consciousness for the released soul. The worlds which are subject to
change thus form objects for that soul's experience, in so far as they
form part of Brahman's manifestation. For Scripture declares that the
released soul thus abides within, i.e. is conscious of the changeless
highest Brahman, 'when he finds freedom from fear and an abode in that
which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he obtains
the fearless' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). And that the world is contained within
Brahman as its manifestation is declared in the text, 'In that all the
worlds abide, and no one goes beyond' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 8). The meaning of
the text stating that the Released freely move in all worlds, and
similar texts, therefore is only that the released soul while conscious
of Brahman with its manifestations experiences also the enjoyments,
lying within the sphere of change, which abide in the world of
Hiranyagarbha and similar beings; not that it possesses the world-
energies--creative, ruling, and so on--which are the distinctive
attribute of the highest Lord.




20. And thus Perception and Inference show.

That the energies connected with the rule of the entire world are
exclusive attributes of the highest Person, Scripture and Smriti alike
declare. Compare scriptural texts such as 'From fear of him the wind
blows,' &c. (Taitt. Up. II, 8, 1); 'By the command of that Imperishable
one sun and moon stand, held apart' (Bri. Up. III, 9); 'He is the lord
of all, the king of all beings, the protector of all beings' (Bri. Up.
IV, 4, 22). And Smriti texts such as 'With me as Supervisor, Prakriti
brings forth the Universe of the movable and the immovable, and for this
reason the world ever moves round'; 'Pervading this entire Universe by a
portion of mine I do abide' (Bha. Gī. IX, 10; X, 42). Scripture and
Smriti likewise declare that of the bliss which is enjoyed by the
released soul the highest Person alone is the cause--'For he alone
causes blessedness' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'He who serves me with
unswerving devotion, surpasses these qualities and is fitted for
becoming one with Brahman. For I am the abode of Brahman, of infinite
immortality, of everlasting virtue, and of absolute bliss' (Bha. Gī. XIV,
26-27). The exalted qualities of the soul--freedom from evil and sin and
so on--which manifest themselves in the state of Release no doubt belong
to the soul's essential nature; but that the soul is of such a nature
fundamentally depends on the Supreme Person, and on him also depends the
permanency of those qualities; they are permanent in so far as the Lord
himself on whom they depend is permanent. It is in the same way that all
the things which constitute the means of enjoyment and sport on the part
of the Lord are permanent in so far as the Lord himself is permanent. It
thus appears that the equality to the Lord which the released soul may
claim does not extend to the world-ruling energies.




21. And on account of the indication of the equality of enjoyment only.

The previous conclusion is confirmed by the further fact that the text
directly teaches the released soul to be equal to Brahman in so far only
as enjoying direct insight into the true nature of Brahman. 'He reaches
all objects of desire, together with the all-knowing Brahman' (Taitt. Up.
II, 1, 1).--The conclusion thus is that we have to shape our ideas as to
the powers of the released soul in accordance with what the texts say as
to the Lord only possessing the power of ruling and controlling the
entire world, and that hence the latter power cannot be attributed to
the soul.--But if the powers of the released soul altogether depend on
the Lord, it may happen that He, being independent in all his doings,
may will the released soul to return into the Sawsara.--Of this doubt
the next Sūtra disposes.




22. Non-return, according to Scripture; non-return, according to
Scripture.

We know from Scripture that there is a Supreme Person whose nature is
absolute bliss and goodness; who is fundamentally antagonistic to all
evil; who is the cause of the origination, sustentation, and dissolution
of the world; who differs in nature from all other beings, who is all-
knowing, who by his mere thought and will accomplishes all his purposes;
who is an ocean of kindness as it were for all who depend on him; who is
all-merciful; who is immeasurably raised above all possibility of any
one being equal or superior to him; whose name is the _highest Brahman_.
And with equal certainty we know from Scripture that this Supreme Lord,
when pleased by the faithful worship of his Devotees--which worship
consists in daily repeated meditation on Him, assisted by the
performance of all the practices prescribed for each caste and āsrama--
frees them from the influence of Nescience which consists of karman
accumulated in the infinite progress of time and hence hard to overcome;
allows them to attain to that supreme bliss which consists in the direct
intuition of His own true nature: and after that does not turn them back
into the miseries of Samsāra. The text distinctly teaching this is 'He
who behaves thus all his life through reaches the world of Brahman and
does not return' (Ch. Up. VIII, 15). And the Lord himself declares
'Having obtained me great-souled men do not come into rebirth, the
fleeting abode of misery; for they have reached the highest perfection.
Up to the world of Brahma the worlds return again, O Arjuna; but having
attained to me, O son of Kunti, there is no rebirth' (Bha. Gi. VIII, 1,
5-16). As, moreover, the released soul has freed itself from the bondage
of karman, has its powers of knowledge fully developed, and has all its
being in the supremely blissful intuition of the highest Brahman, it
evidently cannot desire anything else nor enter on any other form of
activity, and the idea of its returning into the Samsāra therefore is
altogether excluded. Nor indeed need we fear that the Supreme Lord when
once having taken to himself the Devotee whom he greatly loves will turn
him back into the Samsāra. For He himself has said, 'To the wise man I
am very dear, and dear he is to me. Noble indeed are all these, but the
wise man I regard as my very Self. For he, with soul devoted, seeks me
only as his highest goal. At the end of many births the wise man goes to
me, thinking all is Vāsudeva. Such great-souled men are rarely met with'
(Bha. Gī. VII, 17-19).--The repetition of the words of the Sūtra
indicates the conclusion of this body of doctrine. Thus everything is
settled to satisfaction.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'with the
exception of the world-energies.'

Here terminates the fourth pāda of the fourth adhyāya of the commentary
on the Sārīraka Mīmāmsā, composed by the reverend teacher Rāmānuja. This
completes the fourth adhyāya, and the whole work; and the entire body of
doctrine is thus brought to a conclusion.




INDEX OF SANSKRIT WORDS

amsa, part,

akshara, the Imperishable,

akhyāti, the view that the attribute of one thing appears as that of
another,

Agnirahasya, chapter in the Vājasaneyaka (Sat. Bra. X),

Agnividyā, knowledge of the Fires (i.e. Ch. Up. IV, 11-13),

agnihotra,

aghātikarman,

anga, subordinate matter,

angin, principal matter,

ajada, intelligent,

ajadatva, intelligence,

ajā,'the unborn' principle, goat,

ajńāna, non-knowledge, Nescience,

ajiva, non-soul,

anu, of atomic size,

atigraha,

ativādin, one who makes a final supreme declaration,

Aditi, the individual soul,

adrishta, supersensuous, transcendental, the unseen principle

advitīya, without a second,

advaita-vādin,

advaitin, he who holds the view of non-duality,

adharma, demerit,

adhikarana, chapter, passim.

adhipati, sense-organ,

adhyayana, learning,

adhyavasāya, the deciding,

adhyāsa, superimposition,

anavasāda, freedom from dejection,

anātmatva, absence of selfhood,

anārabdhakārya, (works) the effects of which have not yet begun,

aniruddha, principle of egoity,

anirvakaniyatā, inexplicability,

anirvakaniyatvā,

anirvakaniyatā-vadin,

anīsā,

anukūla, agreeable,

anuddharsha, absence of exultation,

anupalabdhi, non-perception,

anubhūti, consciousness,

anumati, favour, permission,

anumāna, inference,

anuvāda, reference to what is established by other means, explanatory
comment,

anusaya, remainder,

anusmriti, recognition,

anrita, untrue,

antahkarana, internal organ,

antaram, difference, interval, break,

antariksha, ether, atmosphere,

antaryāmin, the inner Ruler,

antaryami-brāhmana,

anna, food,

anvaya, connexion, presence,

apara, secondary, lowest,

aparokshatva, being that which does not transcend the senses,

apāna,

apurushārtha, non-advantageous,

apūrva, unprecedented, new, the supersensuous result of an action which
later on produces the sensible result,

apratisahkhyā,

abhāva, absence of something, non-existence,

abhimāna, misconception,

abhivimāna,

abheda, non-distinction,

amūrta, undefined,

amrita,

amauna, non-mauna (see mauna),

arthavāda, an additional statement,

arthāpatti,

avagati, consciousness,

avatāra, incarnation,

avidyā, Nescience,

avivākya, (day of Soma sacrifice),

avyakta, the Unevolved,

avyākritam, unevolved matter,

asvatva, generic character of horses,

asatkārya,

asatkāryavāda, the theory that the effect does not exist before its
origination,

asatkhyāti, the view that the non-existing appears as existing,

asatya, untrue,

astikāya, existing body,

ahamkartri, organ of Egoity,

ahamkāra, the 'I,' egoity,

aham, 'I,' a secret name of Brahman,

ahar, a secret name of Brahman,

ahīna, class of sacrifices,

ākānkshā, expectancy,

ākāsa, ether,

ākāra, conduct,

ātmakhyāti, the view that the Self appears as a thing,

atman, Self,

ātmabhāva, own being,

Āditya, Sun,

ādesa, instruction,

ānanda, bliss,

ānandamaya, consisting of bliss,

ānumāna, object of inference,

ānumānika, to be inferred,

ābhāsa, appearance,

ārambhana that which is taken or touched,

ārambhana-adhikarana,

Ārhata, a Jaina,

ālambhana,

āsrama, stage of life,

āsrava, influx,

itikartavyatā, mode of procedure,

indriya, sense-organ,

īksh, to think,

īsvara, the Lord,

utpatti, being originated,

udāna,

udgātri,

udgītha,

udgītha-vidyā,

unmana, measure,

upakurvāna, a Brahmakārin who has completed his course of study and
becomes a householder,

Upakosala-vidyā,

upalakshana, secondary mark,

upasad, certain offerings,

upādāna, material cause,

upādhi, limiting adjunct,

upās, to meditate,

upāsana, meditation,

upāsana, meditation,

ūha, a kind of cognitional activity,

rita,

ekavākyatva, syntactical unity,

aisvarya, lordly power, superior existence,

om, omkāra, the syllable Om, aupādhika, limiting adjuncts,

karana, instrument, activity, action, the instrumental case,

karmakānda,

karman, action, works, good and evil deeds,

karma-bhāvanā,

karma-mīmāmsā,

kalpa, world period,

kalpaka, the shaping agent,

kalpana, formation, i.e.creation,

kalyāna, virtuous conduct,

kāpāla, skull,

kāma, desired thing,

kārya, thing to be done,

kāla, time,

Kundapāyinām ayanam,

kriti, action,

kaivalya, isolation,

kriyā, action, works,

kshetrajńa, embodied soul,

khanda, a piece,

khyāti,

gati, the going,

guna, quality, attribute, secondary matter, details,

godohana, a sacrificial vessel,

graha,

ghanī-bhūta, concreted,

ghātikarman,

kfaturmukha, four-faced,

kamasa, cup,

karana, conduct, works,

kitta, mind,

kid-rūpa, essentially intelligent,

kinta, thinking,

kaitanya, intelligence,

kaitta, mental,

gada, non-intelligent,

gāti, generic character,

giva, individual soul,

gīva ātmā, living Self,

givaghana,

givanmukta, released in this life,

gīvanmukti, release in this life,

gńa., knower,

gńātri, knower,

gńāna., knowledge, consciousness, pl. forms of knowledge,

tajjalan,

tatkratuh, according to what his thought is,

tattva of the Sānkhyas,

tat tvam asi,

tanu, body,

tan-maya, consisting of that,

tanmātra, the subtle matter,

tapas, austerity,

tamas, darkness,

tarka, ratiocination,

tukch, futile,

tejas, fire or heat,

taijasa, active,

tyat, that,

dama,

dahara-vidyā,

daharākāsa, small ether,

dīkshā, initiatory ceremony,

devamāyā,

desa, place,

dosha, imperfection, a».

dravya, substance,

dvādasāha, the twelve days' sacrifice,

dviparārdha,

dvīpa, island,

dvaita, duality,

dvaitavādin, (the Vaiseshika) who holds the view of duality,

dharma, attribute,

dhyāna, devout meditation,

dhyana-vidhi,

dhyai, to meditate or to know,

nādī, vein,

nāda, tone,

nāmadheya, name,

nitya, permanent,

nityānityavastuviveka,

nididhyāsana, meditation,

nididhyāsitavya, to be meditated upon,

nimitta, cause,

niyoga, i.e. apūrva, supersensuous result of an action which later on
products the sensible result,

niranvaya, absolute,

nirupākhya, non-entity,

nirjara, decay,

nirvikalpaka, non-determinate,

Nishāda-sthapati,

nivāra, wild rice,

naimittika, contingent,

naishhthika, a perpetual religious student observing the vow of
chastity,

pańkaganah, 'five-people,'

pańkāgni-vidyā,

pada, word,

padārtha, a thing,

para, highest,

paramātman, higher Self,

paramesara, highest Lord,

parinama, modification,

paryāya, particular states of substances

pāńditya, learning,

pāriplava, a performance of the Asvamedha sacrifice,

pārivrajaka, an ascetic,

pārivrājya, the wandering about as a mendicant,

putika, a plant,

pudgala, body,

purusha soul,

purushavakas, to he designated by the term 'man,'

purusha-vidyā,

purushottama, the highest Person,

pūrvapaksha, primā facie view,

pūrvapakshin, he who holds the primā facie view, passim.

prakarana, leading subject-matter,

prakāra, mode,

prakās, to shine forth,

prakāsa, light,

prakriti, primeval matter, originating principle, nature,

prakriyā, subject-matter,

prajńamatrah, subjects,

pranava, the syllable Om,

Pratardana-vidyā (i.e. Kau. Up III),

pratikūla, disagreeable,

pratījńā, initial statement,

pratlbuddha atma, the Self of intelligence,

pratisankhya,

pratīka, symbol,

pratyaksha, perception, presentative thought,

pratyakshatā, immediate presentation,

pratyag-ātman, the individual soul,

pratyaa, consciousness,

pratyāhāra, complete restraining of the senses from receiving external
impressions,

prathiman, solid extension,

pradesa, space,

pradyumna, the internal organ,

pradhāna, principal matter, non-sentient principle,

pradhāna, a superior,

prabhā, light,

prayojana, final cause,

pralaya, destruction of the world,

prāgńa, knowing, conscious, intelligent, the personal Self, the highest
Self,

prāna, breath, breathing out; soul; Breath, a name of Brahman,

prāna, pl. organs and vital breath,

prānamaya, consisting of breath,

prānāgnihotra,

prādesamātra,

prāpti, the being obtained,

prāyaskitta, expiatory rite,

prerakatva, prompting quality,

phala, result,

phalavidhi, injunction of results,

bādha, sublation,

bādhita, sublated,

bālya, childlike state,

buddhi, internal organ, intellect,

brimh, root from which 'Brahman' is derived,

brimhana, growth,

brihat, great,

brihattva, greatness,

brahmakarya, chastity,

brahmagignāsā, enquiry into Brahman,

brahmatva, Brahma-hood,

brahman,

brahma-bhāvanā,

brahmavidyā, knowledge of Brahman,

brahmasamstha, founded on Brahman,

bhakti, devotion, devout meditation,

bhagavat, the Lord, then a holy person,

bhagāsana,

bhākta, secondary or figurative,

bhāva, entity,

bhinna, separate,

bhinnatva, difference,

bhūta, beings,

bhūta, element,

bhūtamātrāh, objects,

bhūtādi, originator of the elements,

bhūman,'muchness,' fulness of bliss,

bhūma-vidyā (Ch. Up. VII, 2),

bheda, difference,

bhedābheda, view that there is difference and absence of difference at
the same time,

bhautika, elemental,

bhrama, erroneous cognition, error,

bhrānti, illusion,

madhu, 'honey,' the sun,

madhuividyā,

manana, reflection,

manas, internal organ, mind,

mantavya, to be reflected on,

mantra,

-maya, consisting of, made of,

Mahat, the Great Principle (of the Sānkhya),

mahāvrata-brāhmana,

mātrā, mora (metrical unit),

mānasa, mental (offering of a Soma cup),

māyā,

māyin, possessing māyā,

mithyā, false,

mithyātva, falsehood,

mukta, released,

mukhya prāna, chief vital air,

mudrā, a badge,

muni,

mūrta, defined,

mauna, Muni-hood, state of a Muni,

yathākratub, according as his thought is,

yushmad-artha, the objective element,

yoga, mystic concentration of mind,

yogayug, practitioner of Yoga,

yogasiddha, perfected by Yoga,

yogyatā, compatibility,

yoni, female organ of generation,

rajas, passion,

rahasya-brāhmana,

rāga, passion,

rukaka = nishka,

rūpa, form, character,

lakshanā, implied meaning, implication,

linga, inferential mark,

vastu, substance,

vākya, syntactical connexion,

vākyabheda, split of a sentence,

vāyu, wind,

vāasanā, a flow of ideas, states of consciousness,

vikāra, effected thing, effect,

vikriti, being Modified,

vijńāna, understanding, knowledge, idea,

vijńānamaya, consisting of understanding, (the soul in deep sleep).

vid, to know or to meditate,

vidyā, form of meditation on Brahman,

viniyoga, application,

vipaskit, intelligent,

vipaskittva, intelligence,

vibhava, manifestation,

vibhūti, manifestation of power,

vimoka, freeness of mind,

vivrit, to manifest itself,

viveka, abstention,

viseshana, determining attribute,

vishaya, object,

virya, strength,

vritta, conduct,

vedana, knowledge,

vedanā, sensation,

veda-vrata,

vaikārika, modified,

vaikhānasa, hermit,

vaisvarūpya, many-natured universe,

vaisvānara-vidyā

vyavahāra, speech,

vyashti, discrete aspect (of the world),

vyāna,

vyāvahārika, conventional,

vyāvritti, individual difference,

vyūha, division,

sakti, power, potentiality,

sabda, sound,

sama,

sarira, body,

sākhā,

Sāndilya-vidyā,

sārira, joined to a body,

sāriraka (doctrine) of the embodied (self),

sāstra, science, scriptural injunction,

sirovrata, vow of (carrying fire on the) head,

sila, conduct,

subhāsraya, perfect object,

sudra (etymology),

sesha, supplementary,

seshin, principal matter to be subserved by other things,

sraddhi, faith, belief,

sravana, hearing,

sruti, scriptural statement, rg,

samyamana,

samyoga, conjunction,

samvara, a kind of deep meditation,

samvargavidyā

samvid, consciousness,

samsāra,

samskāra, impression,

samskriti, the being made ready,

samkarshana, the individual soul,

samrkhyā, number,

samjńā, consciousness,

sat, Being,

satkārya,

sattra class of sacrifices,

sattva, goodness,

satya, true,

satyakāma, realising its desire,

satyakāmatva, power of realising one's desire,

sad-vidyā, meditation on that which truly is (Kb. Up. VI, i ff.),

sanniclhi, proximity,

sapta-bhangi-nyāya, the system of the seven paralogisms,

samanantara,

samanvaya, connexion,

samavāya, intimate relation, reciprocal inherence,

samavāyi-karana, intimate cause,

samashti, collective aspect (of the world),

samashti-purusha, the aggregate soul,

samākāra, a book of the Ātharvanikas,

samādhi, meditation,

samāna,

sarnpatti, union,

sampad, to be combined,

sampāta, yāvat sampātam,

samprasāda, serenity,

sambhūta,

sayuktvān,

sarvajńa, all-knowing,

savikalpaka, determinate,

sahakārin,

sākshāt, manifest,

sākshātkāra, immediate presentation,

sākshin, the witnessing principle,

sādhya, effected,

sāmānādhikaranya, co-ordination,

sāyugya, equality,

siddhi, proof, definite well-established knowledge,

sukarita, good conduct,

sushira, a hollow place,

sūkshma, the Subtle,

setu, bank or bridge,

somarājan,

sparsa, touch,

smriti, representation,

svayamprakāsa, self-proved,

svayamprakāsatva, self-luminousness,

svayamprakāsatā,

svarga, heaven,

svastika,

svaclhyaya, one's own text,

svādhyāya, essential, rgr.

Hara,

hita, arteries so called,

hetu, reason,






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary
by Ramanuja, by Trans. George Thibaut

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE VEDANTA-SUTRAS ***

This file should be named 7297-8.txt or 7297-8.zip

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.

Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.

Most people start at our Web sites at:
http://gutenberg.net or
http://promo.net/pg

These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).


Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.

http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03

Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90

Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.


Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
files per month:  1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.

Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):

eBooks Year Month

    1  1971 July
   10  1991 January
  100  1994 January
 1000  1997 August
 1500  1998 October
 2000  1999 December
 2500  2000 December
 3000  2001 November
 4000  2001 October/November
 6000  2002 December*
 9000  2003 November*
10000  2004 January*


The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.

We need your donations more than ever!

As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.

As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.

In answer to various questions we have received on this:

We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.

While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
donate.

International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
ways.

Donations by check or money order may be sent to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655-4109

Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fund-raising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.

We need your donations more than ever!

You can get up to date donation information online at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html


***

If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:

Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>

Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.

We would prefer to send you information by email.


**The Legal Small Print**


(Three Pages)

***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.

To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.

THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this eBook,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
or [3] any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:

[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
     eBook or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
     if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
     including any form resulting from conversion by word
     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
     *EITHER*:

     [*]  The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
          does *not* contain characters other than those
          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
          author, and additional characters may be used to
          indicate hypertext links; OR

     [*]  The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
          OR

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2]  Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
     "Small Print!" statement.

[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
     let us know your plans and to work out the details.

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.

The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com

[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
when distributed free of all fees.  Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
Michael S. Hart.  Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
they hardware or software or any other related product without
express permission.]

*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*